Patterico's Pontifications

6/14/2017

Trump.

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:41 pm

Trump.

Now under investigation! If anonymous sources are to believed! Which they aren’t!

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

674 Responses to “Trump.”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. This is the Trump thread.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. Yes they go off on tangents but they try to follow the crunbs

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/14/wapo-report-robert-mueller-investigating-obstruction-of-justice-claims/

    Ah you reminded me Kevin, comey was also in charge of the comey whitewash he is like montag from Fahrenheit 451

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. Great title! 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  5. I listen to the audience!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. It carrying over thors comment they never recluse themselvrs and this strategy worked against the huntress against walker and delay and party, ‘the process is the punishment,
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-steyn-the-left-wants-to-denormalize-and-dehumanize-political-opponents

    Now what they should consider is what happens when you cross that threshold when political gangsterism is the coin of the realm.

    We know what happened in south and central America.

    narciso (d1f714)

  7. Yada yada yada, show me some substance first.

    Dejectedhead (d3cff5)

  8. I can’t see how Mueller gets around 28 CFR § 45.2 either, if in fact the WaPo is correct and Mueller has begun an investigation of Trump since Comey’s firing. I’ve commented here and elsewhere, in fact, that I was inferentially reasoning backwards from the fact that Mueller hasn’t DQ’d himself under section 45.2 into support for the proposition that Mueller likely wasn’t taking on anything in which Comey would be a material witness.

    There were hints of this from Comey’s testimony that he no longer had copies of his notes, but had instead given them to Mueller’s investigators. I thought at the time, “Hmm. I’m glad someone’s gotten them from Comey, but I would’ve thought that would have been someone else from DoJ. Maybe Mueller’s just being hyper-cautious and casting the broadest possible anti-spoliation/”secure anything that might arguably ever become evidence or otherwise important”-mode.

    In the special counsel regs, 28 CFR § 600.7(a) on “Conduct and accountability,” there is an express requirement that a special counsel

    shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures.

    So Mueller’s supposed to be subject to section 45.2. Andy McCarthy pointed out yesterday at NR that reading section 45.2 very literally, Sessions was not required to recuse himself from the foreign intelligence investigation into Russian interference, because by its terms section 45.2 only applies to “criminal investigations.” But the WaPo story is quite clearly asserting that this is about obstruction of justice, and that ain’t foreign intelligence.

    One other observation about the WaPo story: When you refer to five sources that were “briefed” on something, that could be five people sitting in the room listening to a single leaker who claims to have personal knowledge. Would that be ridiculous gamesmanship on the part of the leakers and their press collaborators? Oh yes. Do we already know that Comey and others in DC routinely engage in exactly such exercises to manufacture fig leaves out of chickensh*t, doing things like having a cutout read aloud from selected parts of a document? I think so, yes.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. That last (#8) was in response to comments by swc & DRJ on the prior thread.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  10. I was hoping you would comment on this, Beldar.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  11. I know this sounds crazy but I hope Mueller doesn’t try to create a Chinese Wall and effectively recuse himself by letting an underling handle the Comey aspects.

    DRJ (15874d)

  12. This should keep TRUMP off the other threads. Yes, it will!

    Kevin M (752a26)

  13. So what do you suppose Mueller’s supervisory authority the DAG thinks about all this? It seems unclear whether he’s part of the problem or the solution.

    crazy (d3b449)

  14. This also again makes me wonder about when Rosenstein decided to appoint a special counsel, and when he decided to ask Mueller, and when Mueller said yes, and what ethical traps-running both DoJ and WilmerHale did. As I commented on another post, that can be compressed into a fairly short timeframe, especially by experts like the DoJ career ethics people who specialize in exactly this. WilmerHale has its own counterpart, probably including an internal “special counsel to the firm” or some such, to leave footprints. Normally that doesn’t take many days, but it take more than a few hours, and often at least a day or two. (To do it right, for example, mega law firms have to not only run through their computer records on past clients, but have to send out regular to-all-lawyers emails saying, “Please look at the attached list of new clients and matters and advise us immediately if yada yada,” with some response time specified.

    All of which had me thinking that Rosenstein had at least made a decision to appoint a special counsel, and might well have already been in discussions with Mueller about it, before Trump fired Comey. Recall that Comey was fired on Tuesday, May 9. Rosenstein announced Mueller’s appointment eight days later, on Wednesday, May 17 — only one day after the contents of the Feb. 14 Comey memo were leaked. We don’t know exactly when during the time period between Mueller’s appointment and Comey’s testimony on June 8 Mueller’s investigators retrieved Comey’s notes and documents. But about the only way I can think of to explain Mueller’s continuation after deciding to send someone to pick up Comey’s stuff is if he’s waiting for a confirmatory report from the DoJ’s ethics advisors to say, “Yes, changed circumstances, now Comey’s in, now you need to be out.”

    But that becomes less plausible — his recusal analysis is “still in the works”? — with every passing day.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. @ crazy (#14): That’s a good question, but I have no idea of the answer.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  16. Kevin M, the one thing no one can deny about Mr. Trump is that he has been extremely successful in keeping himself the center of all attention.

    The networks are in a continuing orgasmic state over this, all of them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. Let’s see — a FORMER senior official … hmmmmm…. where have I read that before?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  18. Their months-long campaign to find proof of Trump collusion with the Russians has flamed out. Now they have jumped from that burning wreckage and hopped on to the obstruction clown car.

    Remember when libs were wringing their hands in glee that they finally had the goods on Trump, that there was proof he had hookers giving him golden showers? Since then it’s been one discredited accusation after another, all with the intent to stall his objectives and delegitimize his presidency.

    This is concerted usurpation of the results of a free and fair election.

    harkin (485617)

  19. Steve57, I’m mangling these metaphors with you in mind. I, too, listen to the audience!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. Let’s see…..

    Two current intelligence officials testify before Congress last week that the Pres. asked for their help in reigning in the FBI’s investigation.

    Now the Special Counsel wants those two intelligence officials to answer questions.

    Does that mean the Pres is “under investigation?”

    Or does it mean that those two people have made public comments that the FBI would like to know more about?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  21. Do we even know IRS coming fro. Mueller’s office, we can suspect because of his recent hires.

    But one notes how comey has skillfully abused his power, I suppose that is a trait if the southern district when he bagged public enemy no. 1, Martha Stewart, now Stephen hatfill was a harder quarry but nick kristof went a whistling and like a birddog he followed. How to make razorback borgias pre 9/11 record invisible go with the one that deepsixed the documents.
    Have a vendetta against scooter Libby higher your associate to rummaged thriygh every word and every gesture he might have done have done. Even after they found the leaker being Armitage where is he now. Right he’s erdogand real man in dc. Get all outraged over a terrorist surveillance you found ovdrbroaf. Dint give any consideration who might slip through the net like say jamal zoygam?

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. Zougam was the initial cell leader of the Madrid train bombings that happened just hours after stellar wind was shut down, now there were other players like darkanzali and parkas whose histories go back into the 90s

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. No>one second of this faderall is with one second of the so called intelligence committee’s time.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. “A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates. The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.”

    This is fine, but the thing is, it is highly improbable that any of that would have happened with Trump’s knowledge and consent.

    And there’s another thing. That’s the quid, but where is the quo? That was a problem with the Clintons. We had the quid, but couldn’t show the quo.

    Is the quo supposed to be coming from Trump? They got paid by the Russians to do Trump’s bidding?

    Only if you were focused like a laser on Trump alone would you look at things this way. And that avoids the truth.

    To repeat: It would cost a lot less to bribe Mike Flynn (and/or others) than it would to brobe Donald Trump, and while Donald Trump could maybe be bribed with the presidency, why would he think Vladimir Putin had the ability to deliver that?

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  25. Sounds like they are still using the dossier as a roadmap

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. As I recall Rosenstein was said to be ready to quit over how POTUS handled Comey’s termination. I’ve never understood why he appointed Mueller to do the job he was appointed to do himself unless it was in response to the WH releasing his memo on Comey without his knowledge. But who the heck knows at this point. So far he’s acting as Comey did with the Fitzgerald appointment which is far from encouraging.

    crazy (d3b449)

  27. @ harkin (#19): It’s been absolutely clear since election day that the Dems wanted to gin up a fuss about the Russians and find some way to turn it into a “process crime” that they could use to impeach Trump. That’s a term of art that you might recall from the Libby prosecution, for example.

    They depended on Trump to put his head in that noose. He’s clearly gratified them with bizarre and erratic and self-contradictory conduct, punctuated by Tweets that can be read, or at least easily misread, into further evidence of guilty mind trying to further a cover-up.

    George W. Bush had the sense to avoid those traps, and Libby — chief of staff for VP Cheney — was the senior scalp the Dems got out of Plamegate, and that was because of bizarre and inexplicable conduct on Libby’s behalf. The lies he was convicted of telling didn’t make any sense, but neither did the excuses offered by his lawyers, and he never took the stand to explain them himself. (Yes, of course, he didn’t have to, but still — he had no priors, and was an extremely articulate witness; jurors aren’t supposed to speculate but we’re not so bound in the court of public opinion. The usual reasons most defendants stand on the Fifth didn’t apply to him.)

    Thus as Plamegate ended up convicting a senior administration official even though there was never any underlying charge filed based on the subject of the original investigation, Trump’s now in a serious, non-trivial scrape, one that may indeed give a process-oriented guy (which by all accounts, Mueller is, like Fitzgerald) like Mueller a lot more work to do, in the course of which Trump may keep jamming his head in a noose-ward direction despite his lawyers’ and advisers’ best efforts.

    Now I’m wondering — admittedly this is ghost-chasing, the wildest of speculation and guesswork — whether Trump asked again for a private assurance that he isn’t under investigation, got an answer he did not like, and then sent out a surrogate to float the idea of firing Mueller as a trial balloon. If so, it basically went Hindenburg on launch.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. So they said and they also said funds fir the russian investigation were requested they weren’t also the supposed sessions resignation remember that.

    narciso (d1f714)

  29. nk reminded me, in response to a question a few days ago, that another term you hear in addition to “process crime” is “perjury trap.” False statement, perjury, obstruction of justice — these are frequent handmaidens of one another. Throw in some mail and wire fraud for seasoning.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  30. The corruption starts in the DOJ and FBI.

    And it is all about covering up the Hillary email coverup and covering up the fact they used fake dossier to launch a bogus investigation with facile supporting evidence called “meetings”

    Disgusting people …….

    Blah (200415)

  31. Libby was trying to catch up to the lies that Joe Wilson told to Spencer ‘throw them through the glass’ ackerman and nick kristof, remember that timene

    narciso (d1f714)

  32. (The trial balloon surrogate in question being Sekulow, a fine lawyer with superb message discipline, whose conversations with Trump as his personal counsel are subject to near-impenetrable attorney-client privilege regardless of whatever privilege claims might otherwise be fought over, found to apply or to have been overcome, etc.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  33. No one will ever accuse Blah of using a narrow brush in his painting, will they?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  34. And where’s GUS? We need MORE ALL caps at RANDOM TIMES on THIS thread!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  35. #27, Rosenstein coordinated with Comey. Rosenstein wanted to wipe his hands clean of the whole thing after the firing. He asked Comey to leak a memo … a memo likely fabricated from thin air, which is why Comey never ever did this ever before.

    Blah (200415)

  36. Now it turns out Valerie was bigfooting not only in cheneys treehouse but armutages that’s why an inr analyst commissioned a memo that pointed our the
    Contraversy.

    I’m going to have to start calling comey Harvey because he might as well be speaking to six foot rabbits

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. 34, want to argue the point made Beldar?

    Blah (200415)

  38. You see this doesn’t implicate comey but all his team. Starting
    With mccabe and moving down the chart.

    narciso (d1f714)

  39. 36, yea. I don’t know. I don’t believe Rosenstein is the planner of this op or that “Comey never ever did this before” but we’ll see.

    crazy (d3b449)

  40. Yes jay has been dealing with all this lawfare garbage for twenty done year now.

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. @ DRJ (#12): I don’t think he can effectively appoint a sub-special counsel. If he’s DQ’d from something — maybe not the entire Russia counterintelligence investigation, or Flynn or Manafort spin-off criminal investigations, but just the newly-opened Trump obstruction of justice investigation (if in fact there is one, which I need to hear from more than just WaPo and/or the NYT to take at face value) — I think he has to bounce that back to Rosenstein as Acting AG, whereupon Rosenstein presumably would appoint a new special counsel just for that criminal investigation of Trump. I don’t think Rosenstein himself would automatically be conflicted out on that, even as a Trump political appointee, but I do think Rosenstein would interpret the “public interest” prong of 28 CFR part 600 to justify a special counsel for any investigation of the POTUS. The old independent counsel statute had a list, starting with the POTUS and VPOTUS, of high officials whose involvement might automatically trigger consideration by the AG for referral to the special panel of DC Circuit judges. The new regs don’t have that list, but Rosenstein has now effectively set a precedent — contrary to the practice of the Obama DoJ, obviously! — of treating every investigation involving a POTUS (or at least, this POTUS) as requiring, per this “public interest” prong, a special counsel.

    Of course Holder and Lynch and their respective principal and his former SecState were all dirty and guilty and complicit and much deserving of special counsel investigation on a whole range of topics, but they got away with that because they’re shameless and you can’t shame the shameless. So yes, there is a double-standard; it’s pretty cold comfort simply to point out that they were wrong, but yeah, they were. The chances of the Trump DoJ ever making anything of any of that now, though, seems to be diminishing inversely with the continuation of the present controversies involving Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. Rosenstein is the Deep Throat of all this. He, like the original, is in line to get the top job in his department/agency if/when the administration falls. I am not saying he is an actual leaker. I am saying he is a Gepetto.

    I smell a Priebus rat, as well. Whomever foisted a special counsel on DJT is either a bad actor or a fool. Perhaps both.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  43. (I probably didn’t mean “inversely” in that last sentence, ought have just left that word out. The chances are diminishing.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. Yes holders been dirty since elian’s rendition and the mark rich matter but that some how commended him all the way to the top of main justice, he then turned it into more akin to the frei courts or molotovs show trials

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. #40 Not saying Rosenstein planned anything. He simply reacted to the crap storm to protect himself by engaging in a simple trade with Comey. You leak this memo (likely fabricated ex post firing) and then I appoint special prosecutor who is your buddy. You get your vengeance, I wipe my hands clean of this mess.

    Blah (200415)

  46. Fast and furious the quartermastering of sinakoa and the zetas well that’s with a footnite you think.

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. Ed, until sometime in February, Rosenstein was just one of 93 U.S. Attorneys. The most notable thing about him was that he was a Bush appointee in Maryland, held over throughout Obama’s two terms. But he’s not a Beltway guy, and a half-generation younger than Comey, a full generation younger than Mueller. He’s likely someone whom Sessions picked and recommended to Trump through staffers fairly early in transition since he was the first DoJ appointee confirmed after Sessions himself. I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about who he’s close to or who influences him at this point.

    Re Priebus, all I can say is to repeat: Jim Baker or Howard Baker or Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or Andy Carr wouldn’t have let Trump get into this kind of mess, at least, not without resigning. Could they have helped Trump exercise more self-control than Priebus has, or handle the roll-out of these decisions while Trump still has his cellphone and Twitter account? All the king’s horses and all the kings men seem pretty much at a loss with this POTUS.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  48. Sessions sure did f up recusing himself. All the corrupt bureaucrats are busy self dealing.

    Blah (200415)

  49. What’s good for the goose, subpoena entous and Schmidt all their notes and records.

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. Blah, Conspiracy comes to mind. Hard to believe any newly appointed DAG would do that but people do crazy things when Trump’s involved. I guess we’ll see

    crazy (d3b449)

  51. There is no underlying crime, a fara registration oversight Shirley,

    narciso (d1f714)

  52. IMO, this is rapidly moving to the point that Trump may benefit in the long run politically by directing Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and then have any further investigation run from DOJ.

    Andrew McCarthy has a column out suggesting that this is a well-orchestrated effort to “watch dog” Trump by the political establishments on both sides of the aisle.

    Historical senior GOP Justice Officials from past Administrations signed the “Never Trump” letter and actively campaigned against him.

    All those involved may earnestly believe in their mission, but Trump is entitled to make the judgment that they are paralyzing the institutions of government that need to function in an effective manner, while pursuing criminal investigations of dubious merit and little significance.

    He could order DOJ to do a comprehensive review of the evidence gathered to date, and order that the only prosecutions that will go forward will be those for substantive crimes committed during or before the campaign. There shall be no “process” prosecutions for actions that have taken place since Trump came into office, and the President intends to pardon anyone suspected of having committed a “process” crime — with no other criminality — during the period of the investigation.

    This would be an “us v. them” effort, part of draining the swamp, and getting back to work on his agenda.

    He’s a usurper to the political class on both sides of the aisle, and he better recognize that they are out for his scalp, however they have to come by it.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  53. #51, not much of a conspiracy.

    Simple trade to solve both guys immediate problem.

    Rosenstein wants out of the mess since he has a long career to look out for.

    Comey wants to f Trump for firing him.

    Blah (200415)

  54. @ ThOR (#7): You’re welcome. Of course it was in response to your comment that I came up with that inferential argument, which appears now to have been misplaced. It rested on my assumption that Mueller couldn’t possibly have ignored his personal friendship with Comey if he thought that was going to be part of his job when he took it. Well, maybe it wasn’t when he took the job, but it is now, if indeed he’s investigating Trump for obstruction of justice in which Comey’s firing is a means of obstruction, and I am stumped for any explanation of how he could get around section 45.2. You could have tweaked me hard for guessing wrong before, and I’d not have taken offense at it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  55. It is. CErtainly a rear guard action by certain elements is the security forces as it was alleged occurred against Harold Wilson in the 70s

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. 15. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/14/2017 @ 9:38 pm

    Recall that Comey was fired on Tuesday, May 9. Rosenstein announced Mueller’s appointment eight days later, on Wednesday, May 17 — only one day after the contents of the Feb. 14 Comey memo were leaked.

    Yes, that’s right,. I thought it was two or three days>

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

    It was a front page headline on Wednesday, May 17, not Monday, and the appointment of a special counsel was announced May 17, I think mid-day. There were barely 24 hours between the time taht story appeared online, and the appointment of Mueller.

    It did take Trump and Sessions by surprise.

    Now here is the twist:

    It is not Twin Peaks, but it is still something.

    Mueller was interviewed for consideration as the new FBI Director on May 16. (I didn’t know an FBI Director could serve two non-consecutive terms – is that correct?)

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/trump-robert-mueller-fbi-director-interview/index.html

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/13/white-house-official-confirms-trump-interviewed-mueller-for-fbi-director-job/

    Donald Trump interviewed Robert Mueller for the position of FBI director, a senior administration official has confirmed.

    The confirmation comes one day after Trump friend and Newsmax Media CEO Chris Ruddy appeared on “PBS Newshour” Monday and said the president had interviewed Mueller for the position just days before he was appointed to be special counsel.

    Now that could still be wrong, because there’s a dispute about Ruddy saying that Trumo wanted to fire Mueller and I think Ruddy confirmed no he didn’t hear this from Trump himself.

    Now a lot of the preliminary ethical “traps-running” could have been done before. Especially if the appointment as FBI Director was close. As FBI Director Mueller would also have had to check out conflicts.

    Now we have this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-trump.html

    But while the president is deeply suspicious of Mr. Mueller, his anger is reserved for Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia inquiry, and especially for Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump was especially outraged by Mr. Comey’s admission last week that he had leaked a memo with details of his interactions with the president in hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel.

    Several senior Trump aides believe that Mr. Comey went public with his doubts about the president’s behavior and trustworthiness with the intention of steering Mr. Rosenstein toward appointing his friend Mr. Mueller, according to one longtime Trump associate who remains close to the White House.

    That might be Christopher Ruddy, whom I don’t know is really a “Trump associate.”

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  57. Re Blah and his broad brush, I ask the tribunal to take notice of the example contained in #49 above:

    Sessions sure did f up recusing himself. All the corrupt bureaucrats are busy self dealing.

    A Trump supporter who can paint Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III with the same brushstroke in which he condemns “corrupt bureaucrats” (does that include Sessions or just his subordinates?).

    Who else besides Trump himself has your trust, Blah? Bannon? Ivanka & Jared? (That would surprise me!) Little Barron?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. #55 Beldar, people lie to themselves all the time to justify why they want to do.

    This is how a bunch of IC guys can justify investigating Russia Collusion based on benign, routine meetings and fake dossier paid for by Democrats.

    Hypothesis driven policing. You imagine a crime, then go about arranging data to support it.

    That why this is all a hoax.

    Blah (200415)

  59. @53 SWC, and he could order the DNI to update the IC assessment on Russian interference in the election and declassify it and get beyond this.

    crazy (d3b449)

  60. Beldar,

    You misunderstood. Session f’ed up because he allowed the bureaucrats to take charge and the self dealing has commenced.

    I don’t think Sessions is a corrupt bureaucrat, but career govt types….. oh yeah.

    Blah (200415)

  61. Mr. Finkelman, an FBI Director would need a congressional waiver to serve another noncontiguous term beyond his 10-year initial appointment (which was just before 9/11/01 in Mueller’s case), but he’s already gotten such a waiver to stay on two years beyond the original expiration of his term during the Obama Administration, IIRC. If Trump interviewed him, I suspect it was one of many “courtesy interviews,” but at that point, if he was indeed a serious candidate to again become FBI Director, Trump could reasonably have presumed he’d be able to get another waiver.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. Ah. Thank you for the clarification, Blah. I’m still curious, though: Who else besides Trump has your trust? Maybe I’m wrong about that too.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  63. Re: Christopher Ruddy.

    Christopher Ruddy wrote the series of articles in the New York Post about Vincent Foster from January 1994 to March 1994 that was always being rebutted by articles in the New York Daily News, and it seems like he was the recipient of a number of false leaks, perhaps mixed in or done to discredit, some real leaks he got. I don’t even know if Ruddy talked to the real George Gonzalez, or an impersonator. (that would be one way to explain a few things)

    It ended on March 14 with an article by Mike McAlary in the New York Daily News (which, then as now, was owned by Mort Zuckerman, although in between it hasn’t been so partisan) about what Fiske had supposedly concluded (some of that was not borne out) None of that made it into Nora Ephron’s play I think. McAlary had earlier been very much against Clinton – he wrote the article in the New York Post in February 1992 linking Clinton to BCCI.

    Pictures of the gun were also leaked around then (March 1994).

    As I have stated, I think this article by Fred Barnes, starting on page 10 of the March 14, 1994 issue of the New Republic, explaining away a secret unscheduled meeting between Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the Unitted States Prince Bandar bin Sultan and President Clinton and Sandy Berger that took place “in July” meaning July 1993, was also probably a Foster case leak.

    I was never able to confirm, using the Freedom of Information Act, that such a meeting took place but I suspect there was some record, and also expected that, if I was right, I would not be able to confirm the existence of that meeting. Maybe it can be done now.

    Ruddy’s articles stated that Foster’s body had been moved from where it was first reported to be in the park. (The park underwent a renovation while Webster Hubbells’ wife had a job in the Interior department so it might be hard to find out how the park looked on July 20, 1993)

    It is hard to establish the facts except you should know that Robert B. Fiske Jr (whom Clinton was attempting to maneuver into the position of having control of all possible investigations into himself) was the lawyer for Robert Fredom of Goldman Sachs when Rudolph Giuliani was pursuing Goldman Sachs for insider trading (it was one of his top two investigations – the other was Michael Milken) and Giuliani was targeting Robert E. Rubin. See the book Den of Thieves.

    The case ended when, after Giuliani had left to run for mayor the first time, Freeman pled guilty to a probably fake example of insider trading that led nowhere.

    All scandals are linked. And there is only one conspiracy. Maybe.

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  64. Also Beldar, to say who I trust start with people who don’t smear with innuendo and weasel lawyerly parsing. So I don’t trust people like Comey.

    And Trump has my “trust” so long as he moves right ward. He is but a tool in my view and my views on him from months past (and why I ended up supporting him) are proving true in my view.

    Blah (200415)

  65. Beldar, you ask who else has my trust other than Trump?

    1) I don’t trust Trump at all. I judge him transactionally. If it suits what I think correct for the nation, great.

    2) in context to what? His administration? Our government? Please describe the pool of people I am to pick from.

    Blah (200415)

  66. I certainly do agree with you, Blah, that Comey is a dangerous man nursing a gargantuan grudge against Trump, yup. He’s got grounds. But the FBI Director, or anyone in the positions of trust and confidence that Comey has enjoyed, has to be above personal payback to deserve respect; I’m sure Comey has talked himself into believing that he’s doing what he’s doing for God & Country, but that’s what pretty much everyone says when trying to explain why they’ve systematically trashed their most profound and solemn responsibilities to God & Country. It’s a mark of how profoundly skewed his judgment is now, and the disastrous but predictable consequences of his skewed judgment, going back to July of last year at least, outweigh all the collective good he may have done in the rest of his career.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. Blah, the transactional answer is enough for me for the time being, thank you. I’ll modify my suggestion: You paint with a broad brush transactionally, perhaps. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  68. #67, Comey is not alone. He could not have done this without support from his management team. Same team still in place. FBI is corrupt.

    From fast n furious to IRS to Hillary Email to Clinton Foundation to VA …. not one indictment and not even a peep of investigations.

    Trump behavior merits Special Counsel and leaking but not Hillary and Loretta and Bill?

    McCabe wife gets a stunning 750,000 for some State Legilsation race? Whoever spends 750k for a state senate seat?

    But a fake dossier and benign meetings get the entire IC apoplectic?

    He can leak everything except do what the boss wants … tell world he is not under investigation. To state the truth.

    Yikes. That is the definition of corrupt.

    Blah (200415)

  69. 62. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/14/2017 @ 10:48 pm

    an FBI Director would need a congressional waiver to serve another noncontiguous term beyond his 10-year initial appointment (which was just before 9/11/01 in Mueller’s case), but he’s already gotten such a waiver to stay on two years beyond the original expiration of his term during the Obama Administration, IIRC.

    If he needed something, he’d need a special law.

    The question is could someone be appointed to asecond non-consecutive term. Most term limits in state governments in state government work that way – the 22nd amendment to the U.S. constitution does not.

    Here is a 2014 Congressional Research Service report on the tenure of an FBI Director:
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41850.pdf

    ….In 1976, the 10-year limit for any one incumbent was added as part of the Crime Control Act of 1976. This provision also prohibits the reappointment of an incumbent….. P.L. 112-24, enacted on July 26, 2011, allowed the incumbent Director to be nominated for, and appointed to, an additional two-year term.

    The original proposal had been to extend his term legislatively, but Senator Coburn and others objected to that idea saying it would violate the appointments clause of the U.S. constitution. It was decided to go this way after expeditious confirmation was promised and Mueller was confirmed the day after he was nominated by vote of 100-0.

    If he needed a special law it’s not too unlikely he could get it. The Secretary of Defemse, James Mattis, also needed a law passed to enable him to take the job as Secretary of Defense. They call it a waiver, but it’s nothing but a regular law, passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the president. Maybe there are some rules that mean it is harder to filibuster and easier to be get put to a vote in the House.

    But who thought of the idea? The whole thing is curious.

    Sammy Finkelman (fe8737)

  70. Beldar, I have no idea what that means.

    But I don’t vest my personal ego in my President. He is but a tool for me to achieve something better for the Country. Some people around here take it personal. Just because I voted for him, he is not a reflection of me or what I want to be. It seems others turn their vote into some moral litmus test.

    My bottom line is the Left is profoundly wrong, they don’t stop, and anyone who is willing to put them down gets my support. Trump is unique because not only is he willing to fight the Left but he also adjusting our Culture rightwards. Not something I saw other candidates capable of doing. And yes, he is horribly flawed but that is the price to pay if you want to confront and roll back leftism in the Country.

    And we have big big big big problems with a corrupt leftist culture.

    Blah (200415)

  71. They depended on Trump to put his head in that noose. He’s clearly gratified them with bizarre and erratic and self-contradictory conduct, punctuated by Tweets that can be read, or at least easily misread, into further evidence of guilty mind trying to further a cover-up. Beldar #28

    Along the lines of Trump is his own worse enemy is that right after the finely crafted Rosenstein memo is released, Trump goes on TV and says, “I was going to fire Comey all along.”

    Have some discipline, man.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  72. Robert B. Fiske Jr. is mentioned on page 492 of James B. Stewart’s “Den of Thieves” and phrases like his lawyers on sbsequent pages.

    You have to really think about it to figure this out, but the best way I think to explain this (especially Fiske et all complaining about a leak to the Wall Street Journal of information the U.S. Attorney did not have) is that the entire Beatrice Foods matter was invented by Freeman’s lawyers as a means to protect the the head of arbitrage trading at Goldman Sachs, Robert E. Rubin, and others at Goldman Sachs. Freedman pled guilty to something that could lead nowhere because it never happened, and that ended the entire investigation.

    The cover story would have been maintained wih Stewart as well.

    Rubin was subsequently appointed to a White House position (to avoid Senate confirmation) and later Secretary of the Treasury by President Bill Clinton, so we can assume Clinton knew the entire background.

    This sort of thing (inventing a crime to plead guilty to) may be unethical, but it might not cross any bright lines, and would be very hard to suspect.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  73. 72. AZ Bob (f7a491) — 6/14/2017 @ 11:34 pm

    Trump goes on TV and says, “I was going to fire Comey all along.”

    For once Trump tells the truth, and you want to complain about it??

    The lie, that Comey was fired over his handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, had no credibility. Not one Democrat believed it.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  74. Nor any Republican, but the Democrats would be the ones to care. Trump had to admit that the paper reason for firing Comey was not his real reason.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  75. I read the WAPO story and saw a few names of people who might lay out Trump.

    Let’s see…..

    Two current intelligence officials testify before Congress last week that the Pres. asked for their help in reigning in the FBI’s investigation.

    Now the Special Counsel wants those two intelligence officials to answer questions.

    Does that mean the Pres is “under investigation?”

    Or does it mean that those two people have made public comments that the FBI would like to know more about?
    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/14/2017 @ 9:44 pm

    But a number of department heads at these hearings have said they were never pressured. So possibly Trump went around the intelligence community and ask what if anything can be done to end this game. If they said nothing, and he did nothing after that, then how do you build that into obstruction?

    As to Comey, he said he “felt” pressured but then admits that Trump merely said the ambiguous line that “I hope you can let this go.” And Comey did not respond in a manner consistent with his obligations if he really was feeling pressure. Comey admitted to Feinstein he is weak.

    As I said in #72, Trump still has an opportunity to screw this up.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  76. I think the President can fire the director for as many reasons as he can come up with.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  77. @53.IMO, this is rapidly moving to the point that Trump may benefit in the long run politically by directing Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and then have any further investigation run from DOJ.

    Yep. He’s an easy read on this given his history in New York. He’s not going to be passive and leave it to weasels to smear Mueller.

    You have to look at Trump in the whole — not just this recent gig– which he didn’t expect to win in the first place. Everything about Trump thought his life in NYC business and entertainment circles has been transactional; about protecting the family name brand. That’s everything.

    He doesn’t give a damn about the United States; just Trump. So when his ‘gut’ tells him they’re getting too close to damaging ‘the brand’- and all the smoke and mirrors that keep it golden and glowing- he’ll drop the nickel. He’ll blow it all up before surrendering to it; direct Mueller to be fired, put Rosenstein in the Elliott Richardson scenario and watch the blocks tumble until they land on a ‘Bork’ who’ll do the deed.

    But what a show.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. AZ Bob (f7a491) — 6/14/2017 @ 11:47 pm

    As to Comey, he said he “felt” pressured but then admits that Trump merely said the ambiguous line that “I hope you can let this go.” And Comey did not respond in a manner consistent with his obligations if he really was feeling pressure. Comey admitted to Feinstein he is weak.

    That was his explanation for not rebuuking Trump.

    Actually, Comey went further. He did exactly what he said in his testimony that he thought Trump requested.

    He closed the case against Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI (a manufactured case by the way)

    The next day.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/832013379124486148?p=v

    Jim Sciutto
    @jimsciutto

    Breaking: FBI NOT expected to pursue charges against #MichaelFlynn regarding phone calls w/Russian Ambassador, reports @evanperez

    3:45 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    ———–

    Jim Sciutto
    @jimsciutto

    Replying to @jimsciutto

    More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers

    3:47 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    Now the Senators, none of them, discovered this story, which was reported only by CNN (other outlets quoted or cited CNN) and Comey has been allowed to go on saying that the investigation continued.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  79. They also didn’t pick up on the fact that February 14, the date of the meeting, at which Trump called Comey aside to talk about leaks (and incidentally, to make a request about Mike Flynn) was the same day that the New York Times story appeared that Comey admitted was false, and that he told Senators he went out of his way to check out.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

    Now what exactly is not true about this story is not clear. Maybe the ways the facts are woven together.

    Maybe such sentences like this:

    The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

    In his testimony Comey claimed the leakers might be people who didn’t know hhe facts, but the New York Times says they were:

    four current and former American officials…interviewed in recent weeks

    Now former officials would probably be high level political appointees because who else would have become former around then. A current one might be Comey, or someone who directly reported to him. Only the New York Times knows for sure.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  80. There was a point when Trump was thinking, or buying the idea, that reporters had no sources and were inventing them, a la Jayson Blair. He probably doesn’t think so any longer.

    (Reporters in the White House thought Trump was only talking about these repeated news stories about shake-ups to come in the White House but Trump was probably thinking the totally invented stories, with no actual leakers, were many of the Russian investigation stories)

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  81. GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

    Wouldn’t an answer to that question depend upon the meaning of the word “authorize?”

    I mean he could have arranged for it to happen, without ever legally “authorizing” it.

    And some of this could have hapepned wthou his involvement. ‘

    Like the following: (from the Feb 14 2017 NYT story)

    The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims.

    Senior F.B.I. officials believe that the former British intelligence officer who compiled the dossier, Christopher Steele, has a credible track record, and he briefed investigators last year about how he obtained the information.

    Trump may have wanted to ask Comey quietly about this.

    Especially this leak about Steele being credible. (which he probably was, by the way. He had obtained genuine Kremlin disinformation, and he’d been told it because Putin thought he was working for MI6, and not American opponents of Donald Trump, who he would have assumed would have tried to publicize it.)

    Also this question is limited to “the Clinton investigation” and “the Trump investigation.”

    This one might be neither:

    http://ktla.com/2017/02/16/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-michael-flynn-law-enforcement-officials/

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  82. Beldar 42,

    I completely agree, but I’m seriously wondering how many folks in DC will do what we think it’s clear they should do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  83. https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/06/15/untitled-n2341103
    FIRE THE DEEPSTATE HACK MUELLER.
    My Gus impersonations.

    mg (31009b)

  84. Trump should fire McCabe, this deepstater is a disgrace to the Trump voters. Clean house gosh darnit.
    I think this dope is a baby ruth that needs flushing.

    mg (31009b)

  85. How many more Americans need to be shot by democrats before we stop these ideological murders?
    We know the republicans will try and lawyer their way out. Talk happy do nothings are repulsive. American Militias will be the only place with safe spots. Bring it on Brown shirts, your daddy is waiting for you.

    mg (31009b)

  86. Hoagie, as quoted from the previous thread, might disagree with mg and Schlicter as to the betting odds on that one. And I think GUS used to be Big Chief on the Politico comments board c. 2006 to 2009.

    urbanleftbehind (34dded)

  87. Expanding to the immediate family:
    http://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-marco-rubio-reportedly-160901957.html

    To be fair, many female conservative punditry, Loesch and Pavluch, fell for that game too.

    urbanleftbehind (34dded)

  88. Beldar, show me the evidence, I showed you a pattern and practice comey has engaged in for the last 16 years as Schumer’s creature, borrowing the language from no way out.

    We saw how the Stevens delay prosecutions fell apart on appeal as did Chisholm jihad but they accomplished their goal kneecapping the most determined political figures, as did silencing the most pro American publisher in a generation

    Whereas son dorzione is totally untouchable as were the major players in the subprime cartel

    narciso (8d53f7)

  89. AZ Bob

    I think the President can fire the director for as many reasons as he can come up with.

    I think the President could stab Mueller in the neck on live tv and you would happily defend it.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  90. Moving this omnibus response to Beldar here from the other thread.

    The only sense in which this answer could be true would be if Comey was engaged in Clintonesque parsing, interpreting “source” as meaning “direct source.” He confessed to leaking through a cutout. His answer would be the same for any other occasions on which he leaked through a cutout. But as Comey insists, you don’t get to pick and choose.

    The testimony I quoted you was from early May, before Comey was fired, and before he followed up on Trump’s public disclosure of their private discussions by releasing his own account through a third party.

    By the way, I find it amusing that you lecture me about supposedly libeling Flynn (even though I merely summarized his publicly known and acknowledged activities), and then in practically the same breath, you accuse James Comey of perjury based on…your gut instinct. For a guy who screams “intellectual dishonesty” at anything he disagrees with, your own standards are remarkably…flexible.

    Dictionary says “spy” as a noun means: “a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.”

    It’s intellectually dishonest to make up your own definitions, Dave. The rest of us also speak English and have dictionaries.

    That definition is obviously too narrow – spies sometimes collect information from neutral or even friendly disposed countries, they may disseminate (dis)information as well as collect it, and they may do many other things.

    But apart from the over-specific “enemy or competitor” stipulation, that definition is entirely consistent with Flynn’s known activities as an unregistered (i.e. secret) foreign agent. What was Turkey paying him for, if not information about the activities and plans of the United States?

    If you look up “spy” in a thesaurus, you will find “secret agent”, “undercover agent” and “foreign agent” listed as synonyms. All of those appear at thesaurus.com

    It wasn’t intended to be a charitable description, but there is nothing dishonest about calling Flynn a spy. He was working outside the law, as a secret, unregistered agent providing strategic information to at least one foreign government, without disclosing that relationship to his own country, and despite having an obligation to do so. Q.E.D.

    Dave, I’m an agent. I’m an agent for every one of my clients, in fact. Some of them, from time to time, have been foreigners, too. I keep their client confidences from public view; some would say that at least some of my work from them is deliberately covert (“not openly acknowledged or displayed”).

    Am I a spy, Dave?

    For someone so condescending, you are remarkably lazy. I should bill you for this professional consultation.

    The statute in question (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is here.

    As you might imagine, the definitions are complex.

    It says, in part,

    Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the term ‘‘agent of a foreign principal’’ means—
    (1) any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person—
    (i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
    (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;
    (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions,
    loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or
    (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before
    any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and
    (2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself
    out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection.

    Section 1(iv) seems to fit with legal representation: “within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States”.

    Thus, you could well meet the statutory definition of a foreign agent. If your work primarily involves collecting and providing information about the activities and plans of the US government to a foreign principal, and you fail to abide by the registration requirements of FARA, then yes, I think you could fairly be called a spy. Especially if you were also National Security Advisor at the same time.

    Did your debate team in high school get disqualified a lot?

    Small high-school, with a very heavy academic/service/athletic workload, so unfortunately we had no debate team.

    I did win the “First Speaker” award at Model UN for my portrayal of Idi Amin-era Uganda, though…

    I’ll drop the patronizing tone the day you engage in intellectual honesty. Until then, yes, I will mock you, until I get bored.

    The only one making false and dishonest claims in this exchange has been you.

    It was obviously a mistake to try to engage with you in good faith.

    Dave (711345)

  91. Beldar, I heard Dave’s glove smack your cheek all the way here in Jenkintown, PA. You’re not gonna take that, are you?

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  92. if Comey was engaged in Clintonesque parsing </blockquote? Well, I think he very probably engaged in Clintonesque parsing when he told Trump three times he was not under investigation, and the parsing didn't have to do with the future, but with the past.

    The February 14, 2017 New York Times article could be read as saying that Trump the subject of a counter-intelligence investigation, and the truth could be that he only had been:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

    As part of the inquiry, the F.B.I. is also trying to assess the credibility of the information contained in a dossier that was given to the bureau last year by a former British intelligence operative. The dossier contained a raft of allegations of a broad conspiracy between Mr. Trump, his associates and the Russian government. It also included unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump.

    The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims.

    Now read this carefully from Comey’s prepared statement, referring to the Jan 6 2017 meeting, especially noting the word “open.”

    I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

    Whether that statement was true or false could have depended on the meaning of the “is” or other uses of the present tense.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  93. What was Turkey paying him for, if not information about the activities and plans of the United States?

    Flynn could have been working on spec, and was trying to find ways to be of help. He wrote an op-ed piece published on Election Day in the Washington Post really at his own initiative.

    He wasn’t getting paid by Turkey, but by an important contributor to Erdogan who wasn’t getting reimbursed by the Turkish government, so Flynn thought that meant he did not have to register as a foreign agent. (That was before the election)

    The worst thing he may done is postpone the fall of Raqqa by a few months because he knew Erdogan opposed arming the Kurdish forces.

    He has also been accused of being a Russian agent – I mean what exactly is the New York Times saying? – even while he was still running the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama Administration.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/russia-trump-manafort-flynn.html

    Mr. Flynn’s ties to Russian officials stretch back to his time at the Defense Intelligence Agency, which he led from 2012 to 2014. There, he began pressing for the United States to cultivate Russia as an ally in the fight against Islamist militants, and even spent a day in Moscow at the headquarters of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, in 2013.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  94. But it’s not enough to suspect Flynn. The question is how did he get such a prominent position in the Trump campaign.

    I don’t think it’s because Putin told Trump to hire him.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  95. Apparently, Dave is crazy, but he’s not stupid. Just sayin’

    ropelight (f923af)

  96. The Democrats – by and large – have decided the ends justify the means and have been conducting a propaganda war of lies and innuendo in a fevered attempt to overturn the last election. I reject this and believe clear-thinking Americans should to.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  97. Stop your mincing, Dave!

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  98. I don’t know, Colonel. Sounds like Dave is schooling everybody here. And I thought all the lawyers were waging lawfare on Trump in Washington.

    I will say Trump has been a boon to the legal profession. Every leftist organization, politician, comedian and publicly funded “art” venue must be suing Trump one way or the other. Lawyers are in peak demand. If I was Trump I’d start sending in the lawyers and the National Guard to *sanctuary cities* to enforce Federal immigration law like Eisenhower did in 1954 Arkansas and LBJ did in 1965 Alabama to enforce Federal Civil Rights law. The precedent is set. It’s a war of lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  99. Maybe the fact that a Russian sanctions busting svr operative paid fusion fps to hire Steele and the Russian probably provided the sources to Steele total moebius.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  100. “When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” Sessions said in a statement.”

    Trump and Sessions end one of the many Obama scams to fund lefty groups with other people’s money.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/jeff-sessions-ends-holder-era-slush-fund-designed-to-funnel-money-to-obama-allies/

    harkin (873170)

  101. Sorry to go off topic, but anyone heard from MD in Philly?

    Haven’t seen him around for a while.

    NJRob (7f4bec)

  102. The enforcement history of the Foreign Agent Registration Act is interesting.

    The exemptions are, too, especially 22 USC 613 (g):

    The requirements of section 612(a) of this title shall not apply to the following agents of foreign principals:

    (g) Persons qualified to practice law

    Any person qualified to practice law, insofar as he engages or agrees to engage in the legal representation of a disclosed foreign principal before any court of law or any agency of the Government of the United States: Provided, That for the purposes of this subsection legal representation does not include attempts to influence or persuade agency personnel or officials other than in the course of judicial proceedings, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or proceedings, or agency proceedings required by statute or regulation to be conducted on the record.

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. Andy McCarthy offers solid advice for the players in how to get to the truth in the best way for POTUS, DOJ, Mueller, the IC, Congress and the public. If only…

    crazy (d3b449)

  104. Trump should fire Sessions, The assistant d.a., McCabe, and Mueller.

    mg (31009b)

  105. And then flip the bird to all who don’t like it.

    mg (31009b)

  106. Today, President Trump will sign an Executive Order on apprenticeships to help people get job training:

    President Trump will sign an executive order Thursday designed to expand apprenticeships to train people for millions of unfilled jobs.

    The measure directs the Labor Department to draft new rules allowing companies, industry groups and unions to create and certify their own programs, which would then be approved by the department.

    An administration official said the “streamlined” structure would foster more “flexible” programs that fit the needs of businesses. The White House estimates there are 6 million vacant jobs that companies cannot fill due to a lack of skilled workers.

    The report says the program will be funded with money allocated to other job training programs.

    I think this could be good: Funds are already appropriated, private entities direct the program, and it helps people get needed jobs. But it should be watched to make sure it’s not a Solyndra-style boondoggle.

    DRJ (15874d)

  107. AZ Bob (said)

    “I think the President can fire the director for as many reasons as he can come up with.”

    I think the President could stab Mueller in the neck on live tv and you would happily defend it.
    Spartacvs (2db708) — 6/15/2017 @ 5:56 am

    Wrong! That is a straw man argument.

    I never supported the firing in the first place. It was carried out in poor form with animus when the President should have staged a formal ceremony in the Rose Garden honoring Comey’s service. And it would have been better if done Jan. 21. But these are political criticism, not ones based on the Constitution.

    Note that I had said “for as many reasons as he can come up with.” The Rosenstein memo lays out many valid reasons for the firing. Trump told NBC News’ Lester Holt, “Regardless of the recommendation I was going to fire Comey.” Does this unwise statement invalidate the ability of the President to fire Comey?

    It might politically but let me make an analogy to Fourth Amendment analysis. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Because the standard is “reasonableness,” searches can be proper whatever the subjective intent. In other words, a police office can have an improper basis to make a search but if there is a valid reason available, the search is okay. The U.S. Supreme Court made this point in Scott v. U.S., 436 U.S. 128 (1978).

    The fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.
    Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. at 153 (2004)

    By the way, it is ironic to note that James Comey argued this point before the U.S. Supreme Court in the above cited case.

    Can an objective standard be applied to the current flap about Trump’s executive order regarding the so called Travel Ban? It bothers me that judges admitted in oral argument that the policy would be valid if made by another president such as Hillary but that coming from Trump and his evil intent, it must be struck down. This is why I attempted to say in an earlier post that the firing of Comey can be based on as many justifications that are reasonable.

    Have a good day everyone.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  108. I urge Trump NOT to fire Mueller. And whatever Trump does, don’t do it on a Saturday night.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  109. Funds are already appropriated,

    Hmm, it seems to be a combination of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and divvying up current funding a different way.

    The order doubles funding for apprenticeship grants to $200 million by pulling money allotted for existing job-training programs.
    —–
    It calls on the federal government to review 43 existing workforce development programs spanning 13 agencies to make them “more accountable and effective,” the official said. As a result of that process, some programs may be consolidated or eliminated.

    And this

    And it calls on Congress to allow student loans to apply to technical college education or on the job training.

    Isn’t that the sort of thing that when helped spread the student loan fungus?

    kishnevi (d764f4)

  110. 91. 103.

    Dave, you lose.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  111. Dave, you lose.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b) — 6/15/2017 @ 9:55 am

    I love how DRJ can get the argument across for those who are paying attention without even notifying the folks who aim to troll and smacktalk instead of discuss the interesting issue.

    But I also like that the chattering partisan boot lickers always line up to declare victory for one another on a blog where they are all discredited.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  112. kishnevi,

    It’s a re-direction of subsidy funds from state directed indoctrination centers to private concerns. That is a reversal of the Obama/OFA push in the opposite direction. The status of the student debt serfs remains unchanged – the ones who are flummoxed by amortization schedules and unable to calculate NPV under any circumstances will be buried wearing their serf collars.

    Rick Ballard (4fdfcf)

  113. Isn’t Comey acting like a person who decides months later that a consensual encounter was really rape?

    Pinandpuller (29fcd9)

  114. Rick, my impression is that expanding the loan program to technical schools will simply increase the supply of candidates for debt serfhood.

    But I think the main flaw of the program was that it allowed for a large scale con job: potential students were drawn in by claims that once graduated they would be able to find jobs easily in their chosen field–claims that were often not fulfilled after they graduated, and after they had signed up to pay high tuition for the courses they did take.

    It wasn’t a case of financial illiteracy. It was usually a case of being one of those people who are “born every minute”.

    kishnevi (d764f4)

  115. @112 Dustin

    Paul Giamatta plays a boot licker on Billions but he’s strictly non partisan in that department.

    Pinandpuller (29fcd9)

  116. kish,

    I agree with Rick that the involvement of private industry, etc., makes this look better to me.

    I also agree with you that it’s not good to expand the already inflated student loan situation or to encourage students to get too much debt, but this is a program designed to train people for specific jobs that industries and unions say need skilled workers. Presumably there will be a better chance they can get jobs if they complete their training — jobs that, because they involve vocational skills, may pay well enough to let them pay their loans.

    It needs to be watched but government-run job training hasn’t done that great. I think this is worth a gamble provided there is some oversight. By that I don’t necessarily mean government oversight. I favor transparency so tell us where the money goes and require that the schools that use these funds make public their graduation statistics and graduates’ employment status. Law schools do this without revealing names; vocational schools may do it, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  117. Hoagie, I’m done with arguing with a guy who thinks he can re-write the dictionary at will. A guy who thinks that everyone who registers (or ought to have registered) under the statute for foreign lobbyists is, therefore, a “spy” is a man who has no concept of truth. He deals in “truthiness.” In short, Dave is another troll like DISCO, and one cannot shame the shameless.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but there’s not enough hours in the day to give them the smacking they deserve, and it only gratifies them when anyone pays attention to them at all, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. We all remember that time that Blofeld caught James Bond for a misleading disclosure on his Foreign Agent Registration Act paperwork: “Do you expect me to talk?” asked Bond.

    “No, Mr. Bond! I expect you to have disclosed that hot dog you accepted at the Latvian Embassy party on your financial disclosure forms!”

    One of the truly great moments in American film, that was.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. I dunno AZ Bob…. there are several respected folks who make a good case for the thing to be shutdown or for Mueller to resign (not recuse) for cause… https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/267608/

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  120. Yes he’s supposed to be an Irish version of Peter bhaara, actually more like spitzer.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  121. Also: Congratulations to me, Patterico, DRJ, nk, swc, and the other attorneys who frequently comment here. According to that exemption she quoted above, we’re all spies, according to Dave’s logic! Yay!

    Now where did I leave my decoder ring?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. My daughter took a welding curriculum at her local CC VOTECH. It took maybe most of a year to complete. She just got hired at a place making real good money to start and benefits. She’s not in debt. The only possible downside I see is if she starts rubbing shoulders with a union. She’s a good kid, though, I suspect she can pass as transunion if necessary.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  123. Pass as transunion. That’s a good one, Pinandpuller, and congrats on your daughter’s success.

    DRJ (15874d)

  124. Now if someone,was working for max zorin the silliest villain until greene came alongm

    narciso (8d53f7)

  125. As long as we’re talking about spies … let’s talk about Sandy Berger.

    Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a “mistake” and was just “sloppy” when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

    Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had “made a mistake,” and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he “lost” some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn’t yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been “sloppy.” This, from the former “National Security” advisor to the previous President of the United States, and security advisor to the current Democratic candidate for president.

    http://www.spectacle.org/0804/wilson.html

    This is why I have no trust whatsoever in a national security bigwig appointed by the Clintons. The ones that aren’t spies are crooks.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  126. What I hate about trolls is their intellectual dishonesty. Every day, every sentence, every word, they’re scrambling for an advantage, and they have no shame. So instead of accurately describing Gen. Flynn’s legal problems, which are murky but quite real, they take little liberties: Flynn is a “spy.” Having thus migrated from fact to fiction — defamatory fiction, in this case — they proceed to build air castles on that foundation.

    It’s just so sleazy — a formidable intellect put to wicked purposes for partisan reasons. I suppose every society has to include the class of people from whom Pravda and Izvestia drew their most enthusiastic staffers, but I fight a continuing struggle to ignore them. My failing, I freely confess, is my inability to stick to my resolution to ignore them. But at least that leaves me with a goal.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  127. Kevin M, Berger was in the intelligence business, but he wan’t a spy. You’re right that he was a crook — the Clintons’ henchman, sent on a mission to steal or spoil written evidenced incriminatory of them — and yes, if that’s untrue I’ve just defamed Sandy Berger.

    Sandy, baby, I beg you to sue me. By republishing just now, you’ve got a fresh new limitations clock, but you’re going to have to come to Texas to sue me. I’ll waive issuance and service of a summons, I’ll meet you on the courthouse steps to make a voluntary appearance, and we’ll move immediately to your videotape deposition. I’ve made this same offer to the likes of John Kerry, and I may end up making it to Donald Trump in due course, but I’ll certainly extend it to Sandy Burglar.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  128. Sorry to disappoint you, but there’s not enough hours in the day to give them the smacking they deserve, and it only gratifies them when anyone pays attention to them at all, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/15/2017 @ 10:36 am

    You have not disappointed anybody here, Beldar. I know I bust the stones of all you lawyers here but I realize in law just like any other profession or trade there are the good and the bad. Believe it when I say I really learn a lot from you and DRJ and the others. You all realize I don’t know nutin ’bout no law. But I really love to watch you guys go at it. I can understand you not wanting to be going around in circles with Dave. It’s pointless. I just like when you guys argue law.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  129. @124 DRJ

    Transunion being defined as having Conservative or Libertarian DNA but in public you look like some a-hole in a UAW jacket.

    For Beldar’s benefit I have a license to define from Her Majesty’s Secret Lexicographer.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  130. Oh, I took your comment as encouragement from an appreciative and thoughtful observer, Hoagie. Thanks, though, for the confirmation. I, in turn, enjoy the questions and comments from interested (and interesting) non-lawyers; otherwise, I’d write a diary.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. I love reading the comment notifications here. Constant references to “Beldar on Trump”. Sounds like a treatise on a particularly nasty corner of the law.

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  132. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Sessions about James Bond movies and improbable plots, there was one a pretty good historical example that one of the Dem senators could have brought up — something equally as astonishing as the notion that the Soviet foreign ambassador and the Attorney General-designate might be colluding in hiding things from the public that they don’t want the public to know, because it’s contrary to what the public would conceive as being in the best interests of the United States.

    “This is my last election. After my election, I’ll have more flexibility.” — Barack Obama to Dmitri Medvedev, President of Russia, on-stage at a Nuclear Security Summit in front of what both thought was a dead microphone.

    I’d say something about pots and kettles and their respective finishes, but that would be racist and evil of me, surely.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  133. Congrats on your daughter, PandP! Our one daughter was slow out of the gates, but is now a nurse and what a relief it has been to her concerned parents.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  134. I keep hearing and reading what stand-up guys both Comey and Mueller are but…

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  135. Great as that Obama quote is, the video — with the spontaneous extension of Obama’s hand to earnestly press Medvedev’s hand as they lean their heads in close, like sweethearts ….

    Beldar (fa637a)

  136. @126 Kevin M

    I laugh every time Rush calls him Sandy Burglar.

    He probably fancied himself Nick Cage searching for hidden treasure.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  137. … these leaks seem to call that and the integrity of their former employer into question.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  138. Pretty sure Sandy Burglar is dead. Is there a statute of limitations on an estate trying to sue you?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  139. 136… now there’s some of that damned collusion right there!

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  140. @ Appalled (#132): Funny!

    So if Patterico posted something entitled, “LSD & crystal meth,” the sidebar comments notification would read, “Beldar on LSD & crystal meth.” Hmmm! Snarky possibilities for you there, Patterico.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  141. I’ve read Sandy Burglar used to head out to the discos in the 70s with a summer sausage taped to his inner thigh… it was the initial stages of perfecting his technique.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  142. @129 Rev Hoagie

    Maybe it’s best to compare lawyers to cosmetologists:

    Some are better than others

    Most times you get what you pay for

    If you do it yourself it looks like it

    Often the client doesn’t have much to work with

    The main difference is that the five years you spent in prison won’t grow back

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  143. Whoops! Yep, I’d forgotten that he died in 2015, Pin. But you’re right, most U.S. jurisdictions hold that death cuts off defamation claims, even for the estate or survivors, and even when recast as intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, or other such tort theories.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  144. It all fell apart when the NYPD pulled a drug raid at Studio 54 and the narc dogs immediately went for Burglar’s groin. Quite a thing.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  145. @134 Colonel Haiku

    A nurse? I didn’t know you were Filipino! Congrats.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  146. 128. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/15/2017 @ 11:08 am

    Sandy, baby, I beg you to sue me.

    No, that can’t happen. He died recently. (actually this was as far back as December 2, 2015.) He had “a cancer diagnosis” but kept active till near the end and the end may have been unexpected to him. He was 70.

    Sandy Burglar was the only other person in the room when (I surmise) the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan arranged to suddenly meet President Clinton to report that he, or someone reporting to him but also with diplomatic immunity, had just killed White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster, and would he please cover it up.

    Clinton accepted his explanation of the murder and agreed to cover it up and told him, first thing, move the body across the street and down the road a bit into Ft. Marcy Park to give him federal jurisdiction.

    Later on, in March 1994, at a time when Foster case loose ends were being cleared up, this explanation of the secret, unscheduled meeting between President Clinton and Prince Bandar was leaked to Fred Barnes and published in the New Republic. (page 10-11 March 14, 1994 issue)

    I had to already know about the Saudi Arabian Ambassador’s residence to find this article a year or two or more later. I filed several FOIA requests in 1997 in an attempt to verify the mere fact of that meeting, but to no avail – but that’s exactly what should have happened if the theory was right that the purpose of that emergency meeting was really to notify President Bill Clinton that he, or someone acting under his authority, had just killed Vincent Foster, and to explain it and ask for his assistance in covering it up. (while he couldn’t be prosecuted for it, his career could be in trouble)

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  147. Angelo (d7daf5)

  148. @91. Well said, Dave. Exemplary.

    Regardless of your position– left, center or right- and sincerity to engage, you’re dealing w/a rigid ideologue. Conservative. Angry. Even scared. And Texan. A minority agenda coveted and sought for years has been effectively neutered within one of the major political parties and rejected by the broader electorate even w/control of Congress and the WH. It’s an opportunity lost; the last gasp of the past- and they know it. There’s not nearly as many of them across the country as they’ve been led to believe. Pragmatism is in; ideologues are out.

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter “Watergate, Watergate, Watergate” Words Of Wonder:

    “When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: ‘Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that’ ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, ‘the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case’, period!

    http://watergate.info/1972/06/23/the-smoking-gun-tape.html

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  149. (Texas law is actually a little bit hinky on this point. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 73.001, carrying over language from an older version of Texas statutes, still defines libel as “a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person’s reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” Most Texas lawyers who practice defamation law assume that that’s probably no longer good law, but at a minimum, being dead has a pretty decisive impact on one’s ability to recover any future damages whatsoever for such economic elements as lost wages, so it’s been a very long time since anyone’s tried to test its continued validity. But the majority rule in most jurisdictions is that death extinguishes defamation and related claims.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  150. Congrats pinpuller.

    Well Berger was lobbyist for payless shoes, which were big into China, comey handled that investigation aS well.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  151. To fully answer your question, Pin: If there is any claim for defamation that might arguably survive the life of the allegedly defamed person, the statute of limitations for bringing that claim in Texas is one year from the date the defamatory statement is published. In that, Texas actually is in tune with the majority rule, and many other states have one-year limitations periods for defamation — a limitations period deliberately made shorter than for most other types of legal claims. (The general tort limitations period in Texas is two years, for example, with four years for breach of contract.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  152. Well one also refer to Ted Kennedy using Jack Finney as a back cnnel to the Soviets also in the tower commission report theybnoyed there were two other back channels to Iran one through al haig another from ted.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  153. They defame Nixon all the time, alleging all sorts of dark doings it just seem some parties are off limits.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  154. Keeping the hack Mueller will continue the inter coursing of the voter.

    mg (31009b)

  155. 146 – Pin, I thought the Colonel didnt like ’em swarthy.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  156. @155. They?

    He did it to himself.

    “The Nixon tapes are a tire iron around his neck and he’ll never escape them.” — Bob Woodward

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  157. Then there s bolshakov, rfks back channel who mislead same about operation Anadyr. Luvkily the y2k had snagged penkovsky

    narciso (8d53f7)

  158. I went to some effort — multiple posts over three years, all with links to source materials — to remind Sen. Kerry about the various statutes of limitations that might govern his potential defamation claims against John O’Neill, Jerome Corsi, the company that published their book, the SwiftVets, and me: Only one year in Texas (where O’Neill & I live), New Jersey (Corsi), and the District of Columbia (Regnery Publishing), but an incredibly generous and atypical three full years in Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts.

    Despite my frequent reminders, Senator/Secretary/Sailboarder Kerry allowed all those statutes of limitations to lapse by 2007. I nevertheless made a public promise then to waive all statutes of limitations and meet him on the courthouse steps — a “standing offer,” I called it. It still stands.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  159. Yes Nixon was more forthright in part because rightly knew that staffers like Dean would try to paint themselves in the best light.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  160. Beldar:

    Did Sen Kerry ever respond to you?

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  161. Knock it off man of mystery woodwards track record as a fabulist at least since the belushi book if not veil.

    narciso (8d53f7)

  162. @164. LOL

    “It’s another non-denial denial!” – Bob Woodward [Robert Redford] ‘All The President’s Men’ 1976

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  163. 122 – “Now where did I leave my decoder ring?”

    B E S U R E T O D R I N K Y O U R O V……..

    harkin (536957)

  164. Got curious, went to look it up.

    Friends & neighbors, we have nothing to worry about, if Dave is right that everyone registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act is a spy. DoJ’s <a href="https://www.fara.gov/quick-search.html&quot;?FARA database confirms that we have 396 active registrants — SPIES!!1!#!!@! — as of today. Who are they? What names jump out at me as I go through them alphabetically?

    Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP — Bob Strauss’ old firm, Dallas-based but long driven by its huge DC office. Gosh, I’ve had tons of cases with and against that firm in the last 37 years, interviewed with them coming out of law school, in fact. They didn’t mention that they were spies.

    Who else?

    Ashcroft Law Firm. That would be former U.S. Attorney General (Comey’s boss) John Ashcroft. SPY!

    Austrian Tourist Office. Now that one I would have guessed. Probably still being run by the East German Secret Police, right?

    Ditto the Bahamas Tourist Office. Yeah, there were several Bond movies and books in the Bahamas, weren’t there? Again, obviously spies.

    Beef + Lamb New Zealand, Ltd. Obviously mad scientist spies creating hideous genetic cross-breeds. Arrest them!

    Ben Barnes Group. Heh. One-stop shopping for all your false Dubya propaganda, probably still handing out forged TANG documents. Spies, I tell you!

    Cayman Islands Department of Tourism. Hey, I’ve been scuba diving there, and it looked just like “Thunderball” but I didn’t see Ursula Andress, alas. Still, obvious spies. (“Sir Turtle” is an obvious GRU/KGB plant!)

    Speeding up my page-flipping. The biggest plurality seems to be Washington law firms, along with a ton of out of town firms with ambitious DC offices. The predecessor of WilmerHale (Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Lloyd Cutler’s firm) was registered in the 1990s for a while but got off the list. Did they also stop being spies in 1996?

    Lloyd’s of London. But what do we actually know about this Lloyd fellow? Probably a spy.

    AHA! Here’s the smoking gun: Tool Shed Group, LLP. What bodies have they buried, I wonder? Spies!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  165. @134 Colonel Haiku

    A nurse? I didn’t know you were Filipino! Congrats.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/15/2017 @ 11:47 am

    No, but 75% of her colleagues seem to be. It’s uncanny.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  166. @ Appalled (#163): Nope. I was getting 60k+ page views a day back then, but I’ve no reason to believe Kerry was ever one of them.

    But I did print out several of those posts and sent them via snail-mail to his then-campaign HQ and his Senate office. I guess I could have sent them certified mail/return receipt requested.

    More significantly, though, Kerry famously threatened O’Neill et al. with a defamation lawsuit, and I’m quite confident he heard John O’Neill’s repeated invitations — well, okay, taunts daring Kerry — to sue him. And he didn’t.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  167. “Did Sen Kerry ever respond to you?”

    “Don’t you know who I am?”

    — John Kerry

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  168. 158… swarthiness is normally associated with females with a Greek (or some other Mediterranean heritage), Middle Eastern or Iranian background… also see: hirsute.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  169. NTTAWWT.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  170. @144 Beldar

    It’s my understanding that Jesse Ventura vs Chris Kyle was actually against the book company’s insurance company so the widow was not ever on the hook for a settlement and explains why the suit continued post mortem.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  171. If I sue over defamation and die mid suit presumably my estate continues litigation?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  172. What I am left wondering is whether Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller were in on Comey’s ruse to bring in a special prosecutor.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  173. “[A] rigid ideologue. Conservative. Angry. Even scared. And Texan.”

    I’m confused. Is this supposed to be list of features or a list of bugs?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  174. @147 Sammy

    The Lockerbie bomber had a cancer diagnoses as well. Just saying. Burglar could be hiding on Epstein’s plane, hopefully in the blue water.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  175. Paul Giamatta plays a boot licker on Billions but he’s strictly non partisan in that department.

    Pinandpuller (29fcd9) — 6/15/2017 @ 10:23 am

    I’ve yet to check out that show. Homeland got pretty bad last season and Twin Peaks isn’t grabbing my attention.

    I’m wondering how an investigation into obstruction would go. Trump admitted he was shutting down ‘the Russia thing’. He absolutely did intend to obstruct justice. The DOJ can’t impeach him and the Senate isn’t going to be close to convicting, so … what happens when the investigation concludes Trump did something wrong? Hope he resigns?

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  176. Pin — if you sued while alive and then died while the suit was pending, your original filing would stop the running of (toll) the statute of limitations (unless you filed in the wrong jurisdiction on purpose or something like that). So your estate (holding legal title to the claims you owned in life) wouldn’t suddenly become vulnerable to a statute of limitations defense. Statute of limitations defenses are generally considered “procedural” rather than substantive.

    Whether the claims are extinguished by your death, though, and whether any survivors (spouses, close family, regardless of your will) have any parallel rights, is a question of substantive state law. Sometimes there’s a fight about which state’s law should be used — a “choice of law” fight.

    And some states — most states, I believe — have decided, either by statute or judicial decision, to deliberately extinguish defamation claims upon the target’s death, rather than allowing the target’s estate or survivors or beneficiaries to continue it. And yes, that’s very different than if the claim were for, say, breach of contract or trespass to property. So for those states, yes, your defamation claims die with you.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  177. 158, the ANZACs and Eric Clapton had a nice brief perjorative for that

    urbanleftbehind (8c59be)

  178. I would so love it if Baldar’s trolling churned up a living Sandy Burglar a la The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A creepy sex dungeon would wrap it all up in a nice and complicated Japanese knot.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  179. @147 Sammy

    I had always heard that Vince Foster was wrapped in a rug so that explains a lot.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  180. RIP to the West Coast equivalent of the King of Queens. More blood for Ireland Yees hands? http://abc7chicago.com/news/ups-teamster-says-sf-shooter-filed-grievance-with-company-before-killing-3/2102469/?sf88963186=1

    urbanleftbehind (8c59be)

  181. Leeland Yee, that is.

    urbanleftbehind (8c59be)

  182. @149 DCSCA

    I’m more pragmatic than say, ideological, but I would hardly characterize people like Beldar as angry or scared. That’s just silly.

    If there is an old movie theater in your neighborhood you might want to see if they need a projectionist.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  183. @151 Beldar

    That explains the open season on war monuments and confederate statues.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  184. @152 narciso

    Thanks. I was a moderately sized cog in that motor. I’m just blessed my kids didn’t land too far from the standard deviants.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  185. @105/106. Absolutely. See #78. He’ll pull the pin and toss that grenade if the ‘family brand’ is endangered. Unless he starts listening to people around him and not the rumblings within his own gut. But then, he’s 71, and we know how willingly septuagenarians embrace changing their ways. And, as he told a reporter for Time a while back: “I’m President, you’re not.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  186. 175 – Thor
    Of course they were. Trump should have done what he does best. Fire everyone he could in the FBI.
    Idiocy by Trump.

    mg (31009b)

  187. @154 narciso

    I had to look up Tower because I knew he died in a plane crash but I was conflating it with KAL 007 and Larry McDonald.

    The senate rejected him as SECDEF over rumors of drinking and womanizing. Amazing.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  188. @158 ULB

    I will leave it to your imagination the phrase that goes with your comment. WWHSS What would Howard Stern Say?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  189. @185. “You may very well think that. I could not possibly comment.” – Francis Urquhart [Ian Richardson] ‘House Of Cards’ BBC TV, 1990

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  190. @159 DCSCA

    Mary Jo Kopekne could stay afloat with a tire iron around her neck. I thought Woodward was some kind of genius.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  191. @161 Beldar

    Kerry threw his response over your fence. Must have been run over by a lawnmower by now.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  192. 182. Pinandpuller (16b0b5) — 6/15/2017 @ 1:40 pm

    182.@147 Sammy

    I had always heard that Vince Foster was wrapped in a rug so that explains a lot.

    It would explain carpet fibers.

    He was probaby killed indoors, and they had to hide him a little when they carried him out and put him in the park and the simplest thing to do would be to roll him up in carpet. Maybe they had to replace the carpet anyway because of the blood. There was no carpet left in the park.

    Carpet yes, maybe. But the place he was killed was not some apartment where he met a woman. and he wasn’t transportd in a car. They didn’t go far.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  193. @168 Colonel Haiku

    I guess she’s working on Manny Paqueo’s birthday.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  194. @178 Dustin

    Some people call it obstructing justice. Some people call it intercepting a lynch mob.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  195. Think Trump will name a warship after congressmen Scalise?

    mg (31009b)

  196. Foster had a fresh load of love juice in his shorts, he was covered in carpet fibers, and had no dirt on the soles of his leather dress shoes, although his body was found some distance down a dirt path.

    He was murdered 6 months into Clinton’s first term.

    ropelight (f923af)

  197. DCSCA

    I hope there’s a director’s cut that features all the good arguments you left out of today’s posting.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  198. Secret Service records of WH comings and goings on the day of Foster’s murder are inexplicably missing, as are the video tapes of the WH parking lot.

    ropelight (f923af)

  199. Pence hires outside counsel to deal with Russia probe inquiries

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-hires-outside-counsel-to-deal-with-russia-probe-inquiries/2017/06/15/c40ef55c-51f5-11e7-a973-3dae94ed3eb7_story.html?utm_term=.f6addb3efb62

    Damn those ‘nattering nabobs of negativism,’ eh Mikey.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  200. @179 Beldar

    Speaking of venue shopping, I heard the West Texas Patent Troll just went on the endangered list for loss of habitat. Shame.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  201. @201. VHS or Beta.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  202. One hell of a conspiracy theory these Losers are spinning.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  203. @180 ULB

    LOL, I was just alluding to always being medium rare on the inside.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  204. @ Pin: East Texas, but yeah.

    I have many stories I could tell about the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and its various divisions and judges over the years. It is very unlike the other three federal districts in Texas and has been for years.

    Those can be rather challenging courts to practice before if you’re an out-of-town lawyer, even from Houston (and you really don’t want to be from Dallas there). The SCOTUS has greatly disappointed the lawyers in several relatively modest-sized East Texas cities who’ve made fat livings representing both sides in the patent cases that have been on the EDTX rocket docket, which generally favors claimants (including but not limited to trolls).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  205. I’m admitted, and have practiced, in all four Texas federal judicial districts, but by far the majority of my federal practice has been in the Southern District, mostly in the Houston Division.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  206. @195 Sammy

    What the heck brought Foster face to face with the Saudis?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  207. If I was writing a life insurance policy I’d sure find out if so and so was friends with HRC.

    Denied.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  208. @207 Beldar

    I must have been thinking of Mary Robbins.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  209. @ Pin, re #173: Ventura was the plaintiff, and he’s alive. Alas, the defendant’s estate (and its executrix their insurer, probably under a standard homeowners’ policy) can’t use the defendant’s death as a means of escaping liability on claims belonging to the plaintiff.

    The “improper and prejudicial” testimony about the involvement of Mrs. Kyle’s insurer was one basis upon which the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the big jury verdict that Ventura had gotten:

    In light of this precedent, we must conclude Ventura’s counsel’s closing remarks, in combination with the improper cross-examination of two witnesses about Kyle’s insurance coverage, prevented [Mrs.] Kyle[, as executor of Kyle’s estate,] from receiving a fair trial.

    One dissenter agreed that the testimony and remarks were untimely, but thought Kyle’s lawyer hadn’t objected in time to let the trial judge fix the problem.

    The case was apparently tried under Minnesota substantive law, though, which baffles me. Ventura’s lawyers obviously wanted that because Texas law right now (both substantive and procedural) is extremely hostile to defamation plaintiffs. And for that reason, I would have expected Mrs. Kyle’s lawyers to fight to apply Texas law. Admittedly, the precedents on this issue are all over the map, though. The most likely explanation is that the insurance company lawyers didn’t think to make that argument in time, either.

    The SCOTUS has refused cert, and Ventura will get a chance via another jury. I’m inclined to think that the last result is as much an outlier as Ventura himself. But then again … we’re talking people who re-elected Al Franken.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  210. *executrix and their insurer

    Beldar (fa637a)

  211. (Great word, executrix. Kinda kinky sounding.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  212. Further errata to #212, in which this sentence ought have read: “One dissenter agreed that the testimony and remarks were improper and prejudicial, but thought Kyle’s lawyer hadn’t objected in time to let the trial judge fix the problem.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  213. mg@189

    Some decisions made by the Trump White House seem very good, while others quite stupid. I presume there are two factions helping guide Trump’s decisions, Ivanka and Kushner are one and Stephen Bannon and the rest of the hard core advisers the other and that’s the reason for the two faces of Trump.

    Letting the old guard keep their positions sounds nothing like a Bannon idea.

    It is troubling to think President Trump’s presidency is being sunk by his dopey kids.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  214. It’s not by chance that the State bird of Minnesota is the common loon.

    nk (dbc370)

  215. Pinandpuller 173,

    Re Ventura vs Kyle, I believe Ventura’s lawsuit was filed against Chris Kyle, individually, in state court in Minnesota. Kyle successfully petitioned to remove the case to federal court. When Kyle died during the pending case, his estate (through his wife, as Executrix) was substituted as Defendant.

    The reason you had the impression that the insurance company for the publisher was the Defendant, instead of Kyle’s wife, is probably because that’s what Ventura’s attorneys (improperly) argued and the trial judge allowed. The jury awarded Ventura $1.8M. The jury undoubtedly thought the insurance company was paying because that’s what it was told, when that may not have been the case. Legally, Kyle’s estate and his wife, because he lived in a community property state, would have had to pay the judgment.

    The appeals court threw out the judgment for Ventura on several grounds, one of which was that the jury should not have been told about insurance. Ventura appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the court to reinstate the judgment. In January 2017, the Supreme Court refused to hear Ventura’s appeal so the appeals court opinion was the final decision.

    Ventura’s unjust enrichment claim was thrown out as a matter of law so it is gone, but the defamation claim is still pending so there will be a new trial on the defamation claid unless the parties settle (this time without evidence or argument about insurance). The trial court docket I linked has no entries since the first appeal, so either the case settled or it has not yet been set for retrial.

    DRJ (15874d)

  216. Oh, shoot. Beldar already did this. Sorry.

    DRJ (15874d)

  217. If you are right, ThOR, it’s too bad Trump can’t stand up to his kids. Especially since he’s the one chosen to stand up to the media, the GOP establishment, all of those Democrats, and a lot of troublesome countries/leaders. Oops.

    DRJ (15874d)

  218. I’m not sure but I think the jury was told the insurer for Kyle’s publisher, Harper-Collins, was paying the judgment and not Kyle’s homeowners policy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  219. ULB

    It didn’t take a government program to bring minority men into the ranks of workplace shooters. Progress?

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  220. But you did it better, DRJ. 😀

    You & I probably share a common understanding — that uttering the word “insurance” in a tort case is likely to produce a spontaneous rap on the knuckles, and maybe a mistrial, in Texas trial courts.

    Texas plaintiffs lawyers developed elaborate schemes to still try to get the jury to understand that the defendant has insurance coverage. My favorite war story (possibly apocryphal) was the plaintiff’s lawyer who, in closing argument, approached the jury box thusly:

    “When the defendants came to this courtroom today with their fancy big-city lawyers from Houston, they surely thought that they were in good hands.”

    He got closer to the jury and interlaced the fingers of both hands, pouching them in front of him, and continued in a little bit sharper Texas twang than previously: “Ah’ll state that again, the defendants thought they were in good hands with these lawyers!”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  221. Oh. Good. Higher limits.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  222. Speaking of lawsuits, I watched a Danny Trejo movie last night based almost entirely on a youtube star dubbed Epic Beard Man. Bad A$$. At the end Charles S Dutton even asks for an “amberlamps”. Incredible. I did like his character. We need a new Bronson.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  223. That makes more sense, given that it was based on a book. That would be for-profit writing, excluded from homeowners’ policies. So d’oh! I blush.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  224. I love that story, Beldar. Did it work?

    DRJ (15874d)

  225. That was back when mentioning insurance was considered “fundamental error” to which the defense didn’t even have to object. So no, it didn’t work, back then — trial judge granted an immediate mistrial anyway.

    Now you’d have to object, get your objection sustained, ask for a curative instruction, get it, ask for a mistrial, and get it denied to preserve your error. By that point, the defense lawyer has surely made such a big deal of it that the jury thinks it must have been very important, so it’s kind of self-defeating.

    But it’s still in everyone’s standard-form motion in limine, and always ends up in the agreed items that both sides are supposed to approach the bench before raising, even in cases that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with insurance.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  226. The “this was not an attack on the GOP, this was an attack on all of us” PR job is reaching a fever pitch.

    The entire msm is doing everything it can to sell it.

    harkin (536957)

  227. Beldar

    I don’t want to get too specific but I know someone who got a six figure defamation settlement from a voluntary non profit organization.

    As a member he raised some questions about safety procedures not being followed. He was run off and blackballed by other brother organizations. He needed an affiliation with these organizations in order to make money at the federal level.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  228. GOP up by one run in the top of the 1st, on a walk, a stolen base, and a wild pitch.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  229. If you liked Bad Ass [In the Ghetto], then you’ll flip over Bad Asses On The Bayou, with Trejo and Danny Glover as his sidekick, P&p.

    nk (dbc370)

  230. Beldar

    I’m old enough to remember when David Letterman’s Martha Raye joke landed him in some legal trouble but I don’t recall the disposition.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  231. That’s a good piece you linked, crazy (#231), and I commend it to all y’all. I’ve left a couple of comments there, but I doubt Mr. McCarthy reads NR’s comments section, and I think I’ve posted most of the same observations here already.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  232. 201. ropelight (f923af) — 6/15/2017 @ 2:48 pm

    Secret Service records of WH comings and goings on the day of Foster’s murder are inexplicably missing,

    No, that’s not it. In 1997, the Secret Service claimed it did not maintain records indicating who visited the White House (which surprised me) and I should ask the White House counsel’s office, which said it was exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

    I got the idea of going at this from an angle, and I submitted a FOIA request to the State Department in March 1997 asking for reports about visits by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United Sttes, Prince Bandar bin Sultan to the White House since the start of January 1993 with the start and stop times plus anything about it they could release. I specifically asked for reports about such meetings saying that it would be enough just to get the date and hour.

    My reasoning was that if it was really about selling airplanes, or ordinary foreign policy business, there’d be some report to the State Department. My request was finally answered early in the Bush Administration, but I didn’t see anything that seemed to fit the description of a visit by Prince Bandar in July 1993. Now maybe I didn’t understand. There was something there about a trip he took to Saudi Arabia.

    In 1998 when Clinton released lists of White House vistors that was entirely voluntary. Obama by the way routinely listed visitors but Trump has stopped.

    I don’t know what could be available now in the Clinton library. Nobody’s looking for this now, and wouldn’t know what it meant if they found a record somewhere of a visit by Prince Bandar to the White House in the middle of the day of Tuesday, July 20, 1993.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  233. There are ringers in this game on both sides. Might be entertaining, sort of like the football game in the movie version of M*A*S*H.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  234. as are the video tapes of the WH parking lot.

    I never thought about videotapes. That would be what? To get the time when Foster left the White House grounds? These recordds probably never were saved. Are they ever, except in case of crimes?

    Linda Tripp knew one or two things that contradicted the narrative maybe about when Foster left and Clinton kept her on the payroll (she thought she would be continued by Bush II but she wasn’t – she was a not civil service) but exiled her to an office in the Oentagon. Later on, he made the blunder of exiling Monica Lewinsky to the exact same office! They talked, and the rest is history.

    Sammy Finkelman (70818b)

  235. The TV commentary is hilarious: “Bishop is in his second term.” Just like, “Bishop is batting .285.”

    Another runner in. This is going to be an ugly box score.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  236. Beldar

    $10m suit dismissed as frivolous. That road leads right to the Palin kids.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  237. Here’s another suggestion for Trump re Mueller:

    Fire anyone on Mueller’s staff who contributed any money to any candidate in the last 2 Presidential elections. Mueller might have the authorization to pick his own staff, but that doesn’t mean his picks aren’t subject to oversight. It’s one thing to say, “We’ll pick your staff for you.” It’s not the same to say, “We’ll determine if your staff is sufficiently impartial, and act accordingly.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  238. Here is the game live on YouTube. Much better stream than on The Hill.

    nk (dbc370)

  239. If there are ringers, the Democrat who was pitching just now is not one of them. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  240. @233 nk

    Lined up to record, but thanks. The older I get the more I want to punch punks in the throat.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  241. shipwreckedcrew, Under the authorizing statute, the responsibility for ensuring Mueller staffs and acts appropriately is Rosenstein’s acting as AG, isn’t it? At least unless he recuses himself leaving the Special Counsel unsupervised. I would think it’s totally appropriate for POTUS to meet with his AG (and witnesses) to discuss proper management of Rosenstein’s monster.

    crazy (d3b449)

  242. So my take is that book publishers and newspapers draw their fact checkers from the same fetid pool.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  243. @221 DRJ

    I think Ventura said as much on Joe Rogan’s podcast but that may have been before the ruling. I don’t always stay current on my downloads.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  244. Can a lawyer drink an Ensure in front of the jury?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  245. Reminds me of Indiana Jones when the coed wrote “Love You” on her eyelids.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  246. I’m rapidly coming to the view that Trump should fire Mueller, and shut down the investigation.

    You can’t have an investigation of close associates of the President that gets played out on the front page of the WaPo and NYT because of illegal leaks on a daily basis.

    Its very possible — maybe probable — that nothing EVER comes out of all this, and yet the President’s ability to govern is simply destroyed during its pendency.

    Can’t have that.

    Elections have meaning.

    The meaning of the last election is that Trump is President for 4 years.

    The GOP Congress be damned. If the party can’t control itself, then Trump should declare himself an independent before the mid-terms and tell them to save themselves.

    Trump’s base of support isn’t among the diehards in either party.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  247. You stay classy too, Newsweak… https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/874981537577664512/photo/1

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  248. This last pic was captioned: ” Steve Scalise, shot at a congressional baseball game in Alexandria, was an early endorser of President Donald Trump”

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  249. Oh, come on! Clinton went through Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky, which included a grand jury, a civil trial in which he was deposed, a citation for perjury, disbarment, and an impeachment which was tried in the Senate, and he managed to carry out his duties as President just fine. At least in the view of the people who voted for him, and liked his policies.

    But then Clinton was not an orange-skinned pansy with the temperament and intellect of a fifteen-year old whose mother still dresses him. He had the brains and the guts to sell his brand of snake oil to the angry mob who had gotten together to tar and feather him.

    nk (dbc370)

  250. More leaks from the Honorable Mueller it seems.

    Apple did not fall far from the tree.

    Anyway, the corruption starts at the DOJ and FBI, not Russsshhhhaaa

    Blah (44eaa0)

  251. @254 nk

    Mueller seems determined to depose Trump one way or the other.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  252. Well venture is more living dead if you’ve seen him.

    9f course you hire an atty even if you have nothing, the process is the punishment, ask Steven berry from the passport inquiry, or conradvblack or tom delay.

    narciso (d1f714)

  253. Clinton was the person who sullied dirtied his own presidency and the office.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  254. Seriously nk they had said vicious going around saying she was delusional until the Dress popped up, Susan mcdougal kept quiet like a basenghi https://t.co/oz9C5M1L5a

    narciso (d1f714)

  255. There are those Low-T gimps who admire Clinton for what they think passes for courage and virility, but most clear-thinkers recognize a classic grifter when they see one.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  256. When Plamegate first broke, the Dems were all wee-wee’d up about impeaching Dubya and frog-marching Karl Rove in cuffs out of the White House.

    But from that day until the day he partially commuted Libby’s sentence, Dubya and his senior team — with the inexplicable exception of Libby — successfully kept their necks out of any nooses and gave Fitzgerald no opportunity to generate any “process crimes” like those that snared Libby. But for Libby’s bizarre behavior (which I to this day do not understand, at all), that whole kerfuffle would have ended years earlier, with comparatively little noise and furor.

    Contrast that discipline with the lack thereof from Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  257. Dems win, 11 to 2. I think they were under instructions to stop scoring after the fifth inning (of seven total). Twenty-four thousand fans, $1M+ raised for charity. Good show, y’all.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  258. What buzare behavior unless you think explaining things to reporters is odd. I find it a fairly quixotic exercise. Back during the reagan administration they criminalized policy which wAS pad enough by that 00s it was the very practice if being a Whitehouse staffer.

    narciso (d1f714)

  259. I liked the “100-bill through a trailer park” best.

    nk (dbc370)

  260. You forgot how theybwent after rove as well it was buskins fancy footwork that kept him put of jail, it want about impeachment they were solar plexus hits to the foreign policy and political decisionmaking branches if the administration

    narciso (d1f714)

  261. 262… but, Beldar, if there is no crime to start with, which Fitzgerald knew (i.e., Armitage was the source, Plame was no operative), why was this even pursued?

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  262. nk @ 254.

    Clinton had the entire press corps covering his backside.

    Trump has exactly the opposite.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  263. Other than to feed this Democrat Bureaucracy-controlled Beltway Beast…

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  264. The people of Illinois appear to be nuttier and fruitier than anywhere else on the planet.

    loonatic (31009b)

  265. Sounds like Trump qualifies for an honorary law degree based on life experience.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  266. @263 Beldar

    The unfortunately termed slaughter rule.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  267. Now I count bush’s ambandinment of Libby as one of the marks against him. People give up a heck of a lot in terms of earning power and even reputation to go work in Washington, so the least that can be dine is to have their back.

    narciso (d1f714)

  268. “You [lawyers] should be thanking me.”

    — Donald Trump

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  269. Sorry about the typo, how many times to we have to see this movie and think there was another outcome. Michael meyers and Jason voirhees will always show up
    http://www.babalublog.com/2017/06/15/trumps-new-cuba-policy-can-exorcise-the-ghost-of-castro-haunting-latin-america

    narciso (d1f714)

  270. No question about that, swc. But Trump is not alone, either. He has a GOP Congress and a constituency that Congress is afraid to displease. He should just push on ahead and let his lawyers and advisers have his back on the investigation.

    nk (dbc370)

  271. “THE UNENDING STREAM OF LEAKS FROM MUELLER’S OPERATION IS UNPROFESSIONAL AND — REMEMBER? — ILLEGAL. The DoJ should subpoena the journalists and demand they identify their sources. People within the prosecutor’s office who are committing felonies, and breaches of ethics should be prosecuted and fired. And that includes Mueller himself, if he’s doing the leaking.”

    — Glenn Reynolds

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/267674/

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  272. There’s no longer a statute, only regulations — a distinction which might actually end up mattering quite a bit if Trump tries to fire, discipline, or constrain Mueller or Rosenstein. The regulation most pertinent to a special counsel’s supervision is 28 C.F.R. § 600.7 (italics mine throughout):

    (a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

    (b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

    (c ) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

    (d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

    There’s also a reg regarding staffing, 28 C.F.R. § 600.5:

    A Special Counsel may request the assignment of appropriate Department employees to assist the Special Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request the detail of specific employees, and the office for which the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign the duties and supervise the work of such employees while they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Special Counsel.

    Regarding resources, there’s likewise a reg, 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(a):

    (1) A Special Counsel shall be provided all appropriate resources by the Department of Justice. Within the first 60 days of his or her appointment, the Special Counsel shall develop a proposed budget for the current fiscal year with the assistance of the Justice Management Division for the Attorney General’s review and approval. Based on the proposal, the Attorney General shall establish a budget for the operations of the Special Counsel. The budget shall include a request for assignment of personnel, with a description of the qualifications needed.

    (2) Thereafter, 90 days before the beginning of each fiscal year, the Special Counsel shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation, and provide a budget request for the following year. The Attorney General shall determine whether the investigation should continue and, if so, establish the budget for the next year.

    Collectively these create the facsimile of independence, without actual independence. Remember, they were written by Janet Reno’s DoJ just after Bubba had survived his Senate vote. As swc has pointed out, one could nominally comply with the regs while strangling the special counsel through a thousand Lilliputian ties and bindings. But that is going to generate a paper trail, and eventually the AG (or Acting AG) is going to have to disclose and report this stuff to Congress, especially if he’s overruling the special counsel in anything.

    So basically Trump (or any POTUS) still has raw constitutional power — and more running room without bumping into any statutes than prior POTUSes did (before Bush-43) under the old independent counsel statute. But the regs still give Mueller an effective means to tattle to Congress, who can do something about it or not about his complaints if and as they choose.

    I am nowhere remotely close to believing that Trump should, or could possibly get away with, firing Mueller, though. I think that would be the greatest possible gift he could give the Democratic Party, and I don’t think he could maintain that position for long on the Hill even among Republicans.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  273. “Clinton had the entire press corps covering his backside.”

    He also called most of the largest alligators in the swamp by their first names. Yosemite Trump can shoot alligators all day long for the remainder of his tenure and the water level of the swamp will just get a little higher.

    I have difficulty imagining the language necessary for the indemnification clause in an employment agreement with Trump. Not that Trump would agree to it, just as an attempt to conceive a clause which could foresee the various aspects of the risk involved.

    Rick Ballard (4fdfcf)

  274. Yes he is take mark Sanford and drop him in the atacama desert like doninc green, for instance.

    narciso (d1f714)

  275. … most clear-thinkers recognize a classic grifter when they see one.

    True, although there don’t seem to be that many clear-thinkers anymore.

    DRJ (15874d)

  276. Beldar,

    I agree thst Trump woukd hurt himself if he fired Mueller now, but would leaking confidential or investigatory information constitute a violation of DOJ policies?

    DRJ (15874d)

  277. Was the evidence against red queen, baccarat crystal clear. Was Zimmerman absolutely in the right, but who has to live like Dr. Richard kimball?

    narciso (d1f714)

  278. True, although there don’t seem to be that many clear-thinkers anymore.

    Certainly not in the comments section of this blog. Trump uber alles.

    Spartacvs (880018)

  279. They raise an interesting question?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/KappertIsle?p=s

    narciso (d1f714)

  280. Yes on muelkers watch, volodya had the run of the town

    narciso (d1f714)

  281. @282 DRJ

    I agree thst Trump woukd hurt himself if he fired Mueller now, but would leaking confidential or investigatory information constitute a violation of DOJ policies?

    I wouldn’t pin your hopes on identifying and prosecuting the leakers…..they seem to be well organized and focused, the Trump administration……not so much.

    Spartacvs (880018)

  282. Col. H, I’ve discussed that before here & elsewhere, as have many others. The Libby prosecution was indeed the classic “process crime,” and that’s the answer to your question. What seems obvious now — that Armitage was the leaker — surely became obvious early on in Fitzgerald’s investigation. But once appointed, he was going to run through all the traps and interview everyone in sight and make an appropriate record regarding the thoroughness of his investigation, rather than jumping to the conclusions you suggest. During that process, Libby made statements that a jury found to be false and perjurious and an obstruction of justice. The trial judge entered judgment based on their verdict and he, backed up by the DC Circuit, denied bond pending appeal — at which point Dubya commuted the sentence.

    Libby actually got his law license back in November 2016, in part based on subsequent (post-conviction) testimony from Judith Miller that she might have misinterpreted some of what she testified that he’d told her. But his case remains an object lesson in the extreme peril from these “process crimes,” peril that was already apparent to the Bush-43 administration from the day Fitzgerald was appointed.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  283. Trump’s caught himself up in the dilemma that anything he does to try to bring leakers to heel right now is definitely, 100% going to be spun by all of Trump’s enemies as further efforts to obstruct justice. That’s the problem with starting down the path of prosecuting leakers while he’s simultaneously squawling on Twitter about how unfairly he’s being treated by his own DoJ. Is that unfair? Yup, but it was unfair when Fitzgerald was doing his investigation and there were all sorts of rumors — most of which turned out false — about all the people Fitzgerald was going to indict and all the panoply of crimes he’d end up charging. And Dubya had the good sense to grit his teeth and shut his mouth and tell his people to cooperate with the FBI but keep their mouths shut otherwise.

    Should Bush have gone on a crusade against leakers after he commuted Libby’s sentence, then? Well, I think that would have been a grand idea. Maybe he was just already out of political capital, but more likely, I think that he — like other POTUSes going back at least to FDR, probably to at least TR, and maybe back to Lincoln and farther — like to be able to leak, without fingerprints, when it suits them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  284. We keep forgetting the pointvof the progs chokeholds, they do it cause it works they derailed the hammer, left the more compromised hastert without supervision, previously they had goner after newt, ending the reform era on. Capital hill, they did damage to w’s agenda. They scuttled the huntresses. Career, they got their 6oth vote for obamacate.taki g out Stevens, chisholm put a chill wind in walkers future plans.

    narciso (d1f714)

  285. Prosecuting leaks is a separate issue, Spartacvs. My question concerns whether leaks violate applicable rules.

    DRJ (15874d)

  286. If I were Sessions (or Rosenstein if Sessions thinks he’s recused from this), Mueller would already have a letter from me telling him to shut off any leaks from his office or staff and implying “or else”. And I’d leak it to the media. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  287. Am I just spinnning my wheels here coronello they’ve pouting g the night soil fir eight months now, they have nothing of substance yet they have the whip hand

    narciso (d1f714)

  288. Leakers gonna leak.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  289. We have yet to get a leak that mattered.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  290. nk What makes you think the leaks are coming from Mueller or the investigative staff. From what I hear he runs a pretty tight ship and his staff could be under no allusion what would happen to them if they were caught leaking.

    Spartacvs (880018)

  291. Power is not only what you have but also what the enemy thinks you have.

    They’ve got Trump by the psychological short hairs and it’s nobody’s fault but his.

    nk (dbc370)

  292. I doubt, btw, that Mueller is leaking now. There are tons of downstream people, though — outside the small group Mueller brought with him, but already there at DoJ, many of them surely Obama holdovers along with career people who are relatively apolitical, and they seem much more likely to be the leakers than Mueller. But we are in cloud-cuckoo land already. It’s hard to tell which punches are well-thrown and who’s throwing them all, but regardless, it’s clear that Trump is stepping into them, leading with his chin.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  293. It seems aopearancesis more important than accountability, session s really yearned to prosecute red queen which was the right and proper thing but they checkmated him. Sally fan dancer Yates of king and Spaulding.

    narciso (d1f714)

  294. Or it could be people downstream in the FBI too. Why assume Mueller to the exclusion of all other possibilities?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  295. @292 DRJ

    Leaks from the Mueler investigation would certainly break applicable rules. That’s why I don’t believe we have seen any.

    Spartacvs (880018)

  296. nk What makes you think the leaks are coming from Mueller or the investigative staff. From what I hear he runs a pretty tight ship and his staff could be under no allusion what would happen to them if they were caught leaking.

    And why would that matter? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  297. Probably pritap ( we know his conflict) mccabe it al, we have to pretend that something is going on, so that the ones who sold this nation out, are never held accountable, doesn’t that make you angry?

    narciso (d1f714)

  298. This could all be creative writing g Ala6 Ben rhodes till we see an official document

    narciso (d1f714)

  299. I don’t think it’s Mueller or anybody senior on his team, either. Doing it deliberately.` But they can police their subordinates and auxiliaries.

    nk (dbc370)

  300. Sessions can indict Mueller for leaking without violating his recusal.

    That is what I’d do if playing this game.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  301. Ben rhodes has the ear of his brother David. Susan rice through her husband Ian Cameron at abc, likely their stay behinders are in contact with entous Schmidt (Shane Harris)

    narciso (d1f714)

  302. #300 Lack of institutional control.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  303. Certain members of Congress get told of developments in these kind of investigations. Could that be the source of the leaks?

    If so, maybe the investigators shouldn’t be disclosing to the political operatives of Congress.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  304. His it seems its mire sound and fury signifying nothing (told to) idiots

    ttps://mobile.twitter.com/JonLemire/status/875530713218600960

    narciso (d1f714)

  305. Risenstei. Is basically saying we did t know where you ate getting this

    narciso (d1f714)

  306. 288… thx, Beldar. It’s hard to stomach the fact that Fitzgerald – and several State Dept. employees – knew from Day One that Armitage was the source and Fitzgerald also knew along with the rest of the world that Plame was not a field operative. That our system of justice is used in this manner is troubling… at least to me.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  307. In the schaudefreude department megyns show is going as well. As that shortlived Chevy chase series UN the 90s

    narciso (d1f714)

  308. Yes because they couldnt let it known that there was no reason for the investigation , re the nattrrative that this was bush’s vendetta on Wilson

    narciso (d1f714)

  309. 293… far from it, narciso, your dogged determination is inspiring and your manner of writing keeps one guessing and wondering if one is missing something or considering issues from enough credible perspectives.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  310. Kelly used to inspire chubwas, but now she’s saltpeter. I’m sure she’s crying all the way to the bank, but hero to zero in nothing flat.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  311. The people of Illinois appear to be nuttier and fruitier than anywhere else on the planet.
    loonatic (31009b) — 6/15/2017 @ 6:52 pm

    Not as long as there’s Los Angeles, mg.

    nk (dbc370)

  312. DRJ, I’m no expert in intra-agency rules or laws at all. But from some Googling and index-parsing, there’s this, for a start, from the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual § 1-4.330 on “Teaching, Speaking, and Writing”:

    Employees are occasionally assigned to teach, speak, or write publicly in an official capacity. Generally, this occurs when a U.S. Attorney determines that it is in the interest of the Department to approve such an activity. When an official capacity determination is made, the employee’s teaching, speaking, or writing must be consistent with all Department policies, initiatives, programs, and operations. Employees may not make any legislative or policy proposals in the course of teaching, speaking, or writing in an official capacity without prior approval from the Department. Employees must also comply with all rules, policies, and standards of conduct regarding the non-disclosure of classified, confidential, or law enforcement sensitive information.

    That certainly implies policies that are written out in more detail elsewhere, but I’m not sure where those may be found, if they’re indeed public.

    But it might be that the relevant regulations aren’t unique to DoJ. In the Manual’s Introduction, section 1-4.010 provides that:

    Under Executive Order 11222, each agency of the federal government is responsible for issuing regulations on the standards of conduct, including ethical conduct, for its employees. It is required that these standards be brought to the attention of each employee annually. The Department [of Justice] follows the government-wide standards of conduct promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) at 5 C.F.R. Chapter XVI, especially Parts 2634, 2635, 2636, and 2637; and Department of Justice Order 1200.1. In addition, there are supplemental regulations for the Department of Justice which address, among other things, outside employment. See 5 C.F.R. § 3801.101-106. Every current employee should be reminded annually of the existence of the standards of conduct contained in 5 C.F.R. Chapter XVI and DOJ Order 1735.1A, and where to review a copy. All employees should review these standards carefully and bring any problems to the attention of their supervisors. Also, all employees are subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., making criminal certain activities by employees or former employees.

    So if we jump over to, for example, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.703(a) regarding “Use of nonpublic information,” we find:

    An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.

    Nonpublic information in turn is defined in subsection (b) as:

    information that the employee gains by reason of Federal employment and that he knows or reasonably should know has not been made available to the general public. It includes information that he knows or reasonably should know:

    (1) Is routinely exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 or otherwise protected from disclosure by statute, Executive order or regulation;

    (2) Is designated as confidential by an agency; or

    (3) Has not actually been disseminated to the general public and is not authorized to be made available to the public on request.

    Again, this implies to me that there must be some DoJ rules specifically about keeping confidential the products of investigatory efforts.

    Almost everything that would be wrong to release under government regulations, of course, is also wrong to release under the parallel canons of ethics governing lawyers. These leaks clearly include things that would be considered “client confidences” — the “client” here being the People of the United States — that DoJ lawyers couldn’t ethically disclose, and that would include every conceivable kind of information that would potentially be subject to a claim of privilege, including work product, investigative, attorney-client, and executive privileges.

    So I’m still looking.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  313. @270 The people of Illinois appear to be nuttier and fruitier than anywhere else on the planet.

    Except Texas:

    https://media.giphy.com/media/12oYsUCUVFnIiY/giphy.gif

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  314. At this rate she’ll be joining her BFF coiric on Yahoo,

    narciso (d1f714)

  315. They’ve basiva
    Lay mounted a prevent defense. They really can’t implement their own agenda but they cab slow trump’s or at least just confuse the issue.

    narciso (d1f714)

  316. Funny, DCSCA, nearly every day I meet someone from Illinois who is thrilled to have moved to Austin, and I have never met someone in Austin who wishes to relocate to Illinois.

    Of course, the consequence is that the folks from Cali and Illinois want to bring their ruinous political customs to the greater state. The solution is education, though if secession were ever on a ballot I would vote yes.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  317. I try to find the pattern, not the narrative that’s available everywhere. Lawfare is not random it targets particular nodes they weaponize every institution, no matter how insignificant.
    Take a story that has receded into the cycle the gremfell tower fire apparently that is due to the cladding installed to assuage the skydragon whose breath this time around wasn’t metaphorical.

    narciso (d1f714)

  318. And then there’s this Statement by Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein on Anonymous Allegations, released today:

    WASHINGTON — Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein today issued the following statement:

    “Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.”

    ###

    Well, well, well. That’s got to mean something. But let’s at least take it at face value.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  319. Could it be that the Washington Post … was inaccurate? (gasp!) Or got played? (gasp! gasp!)

    Gosh I hope so.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  320. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull mocks President Trump’s ‘winning’

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/australian-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-mocks-president-trumps-winning/102879296/

    And a champion ‘down-under-dunny rat’ as well…

    “I shouldn’t say this to our great gentleman and my friend from Australia, because you have better healthcare than we do.’– President Trump 5/3/17

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  321. Trumbull the guy who had a,snap election because he really believed he was beloved, and got his trouser pockets chewed by wallabies that guy; snorfle.

    narciso (d1f714)

  322. Duterte was way cooler when he called Obama a son of a [journalist]. The moderation filter will not allow the link because it has the w-word in it.

    nk (dbc370)

  323. Hey Narciso was Turnbull the Aussie Pol who was videotaped eating the earwax he’d just removed from his own ear.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  324. Ah… No it was Kevin Rudd… http://youtu.be/_ipvdBnU8F8

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  325. Turnbull was speaking at the Canberra press gallery’s Mid Winter Ball, which is akin to the U.S.’s White House correspondents dinner.
    …….
    The U.S. Embassy in Canberra reiterated Turnbull’s sentiments in a statement: “We understand that last night’s event is equivalent to our own White House correspondents’ dinner. We take this with the good humour that was intended.”

    nk (dbc370)

  326. The U.S. Embassy in Canberra reiterated Turnbull’s sentiments in a statement: “We understand that last night’s event is equivalent to our own White House correspondents’ dinner.

    The difference being Turnbull attended “his” down-under; while Trump did not attend the dinner in the U.S. And BTW, the WHCA operates independently of the White House.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  327. I told Trump he could go, but he balked at my condition of full hazmat gear, and not eating, drinking, or touching anything.

    nk (dbc370)

  328. Beldar — my view of firing Mueller would be that he’s responsible for the misconduct of his staff. He’s been put on notice — its a terminable offense. So, the leaks stop or he will be replaced.

    It wouldn’t be a matter of closing down the investigation — just canning the guy in charge because he can’t seem to make his crew comply with DOJ policies.

    Same rules for the next guy.

    If the reporter receiving the leak says “It didn’t come from Mueller”, then the response is “Ok, tell me who it came from. If you don’t, I’m going to default to the Special Counsel’s Office.”

    Basically, I’d just make their life miserable.

    The reason he could do it and get away with it is the nature of his constituency. He’ll get savaged, sure. But he got savaged for 18 months by both parties during the campaign, yet he’s living in the WH.

    He’s being treated unfairly. The Marquess of Queensbury rules were tossed out the window long ago. Fight back or quit. There is no third option.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  329. There wasn’t any fancy footwork to keeping Fitzgerald from indicting Rove or Dubya — it was just them telling the truth when questioned by the FBI and otherwise keeping their damn mouths shut. Rove has a pretty good WSJ op-ed today that included this bit:

    If President John F. Kennedy had ordered FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to stop investigating Martin Luther King Jr., would that have constituted obstruction of justice?

    ….

    Despite no underlying crime, Mr. Fitzgerald spent more than three years obsessed with trying to justify his existence by prosecuting someone in the Bush White House for lying under oath. I was one of those in his sights.

    He focused on me because, while I could not remember a brief call in 2003 from a Time reporter, I had ordered my staff the following year to search for any evidence I had talked to the journalist. That was supposed to be proof I had lied. Mr. Fitzpatrick gave up hunting me only when he learned that my lawyer had directed me to search my files after hearing from the reporter’s colleague that I had talked with him.

    Which is to say, on the one discrepancy, the one potential “process crime” that Fitzgerald might have tried to go after Rove on, Rove was able to provide a compelling, truthful explanation for why he’d done what he’d done that looked suspicious — and he stuck to that. If Rove had instead given three or four contradictory explanations, he’d have been toast.

    Rove seems to think that Trump having said he was “100%” willing to submit to questioning by Mueller, he’s now bound to that commitment. But while he’d surely pay a political price if he now refused, I’m relatively sure that Trump’s commitment in response to a question from a reporter isn’t something legally binding that Mueller could use to compel his appearance or testimony.

    But my goodness — can you possibly imagine a worse witness, which is to say, a witness who’s more likely to speculate, to evade, to challenge, and to do everything else but give a coherent, consistent set of factual statements when interviewed? Even seeming trivial self-contradictions — of the sort Trump engages in at least daily — can be interpreted by a grim, literal FBI agent as a potential basis of proof of bad motive.

    Dubya submitted to an unsworn 70 minute interview by Patrick Fitzgerald and several aids in L’Affaire de Plame:

    Fitzgerald’s session with Bush comes amid a flurry of recent interviews and subpoenas from investigators who have operated in almost complete secrecy for six months, giving little outward indication of where the probe is headed. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales testified on June 18 before a grand jury taking testimony in the case, and it was revealed in early June that prosecutors had interviewed Vice President Cheney.

    “The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter,” said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, adding that Bush was “pleased to do his part” to aid the probe.

    “No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the president of the United States, and he has said on more than one occasion that if anyone — inside or outside the government — has information that can help the investigators get to the bottom of this, they should provide that information to the officials in charge.”

    The Dems never got remotely close to laying a finger on Dubya over this, because (1) he’d done nothing wrong, and (2) he sought and followed excellent legal advice throughout.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  330. @ swc: Trump’s constituency doesn’t get to vote on impeachment in the House or conviction in the Senate. If it gets to that point, there will be defections. That’s just reality, whether one approves or disapproves of the situation.

    But I’m with you re holding Mueller accountable, if it’s someone he’s responsible for who’s been leaking.

    Why doesn’t Trump fight fire with fire, though — and suggest (or even direct) Rosenstein to interpret the “public interest” as requiring the appointment of an outside-the-Beltway special counsel to be the new Leak Investigation & Prosecution Czar. Instead of starving Mueller for resources, load that new guy up. And pick someone who’s got both strong prosecutorial credentials and historical conservative credentials, but then keep hands totally off him while he goes to work.

    They can pop those reporters up before a grand jury as quickly as they jump through all the other “reasonably practicable” investigative hoops. There are at least three or four dozen such reporters, aren’t there? They can have a wing to themselves in the Alexandria Detention Center where Judy Miller did her time.

    Oh, Dems would raise hell about that too, and the media would go absolutely apesh*t crazy. But that’s the kind of fight Trump wants to fight anyway. Let a tight-lipped subpoena-toting grand jury-convening Leak Czar bring some firepower to bear on this problem.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  331. Appointing a special counsel as Leak Czar is what the Rules for Radicals would suggest, isn’t it? “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  332. A decent programmer could surely come up with an app that rings a bell in the Leak Czar’s bullpen every time the NYT, CNN, or WaPo publishes a new story containing the words “person close to the investigation” and phrases like that.

    Ten minutes later the reporter gets a phone call: “This is Special Agent Smith. I’m calling to advise you to consult with counsel and to take immediate steps to avoid spoliation of evidence, because you are now a person of interest in an official federal investigation into the leaked information purportedly made the basis of your story that was published 10 minutes ago.”

    That would make some waves. But it would be totally within the law.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  333. They’d say, “Chilling effect on the press!”

    Trump can answer, “Speak to the Special Counsel for Leaks, I’m hands off. It’s not up to me, but if it were, and if this had a chilling effect on leakers, that’s not a bad thing.”

    But then he’d have to shut up. There’s the rub.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  334. @335- He’s been put on notice — its a terminable offense. So, the leaks stop or he will be replaced.

    SWC, that’s a very interesting take– particularly given the terminology and timing of the PR. Sorta puts Rosenstein in the middle-‘just following orders taking dictation’- but you could probably make book in Vegas the likelihood of Trump firing Mueller is still a live wire– especially if he feels in his gut the ‘family brand’ is endangered. Won’t be surprised if he pulls the pin, tosses the grenade and blows it all up. But you’re right- his base would rally to it- won’t stop the investigation but could shadow the next fella at bat. ‘Fight or quit’ – yep, that’s Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  335. I’ll say this for Dubya, man: He’s been very fortunate in the presidents who followed him. They’re both deficient in his long suits, and he’s looking better by comparison with every passing year.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  336. 338 — re impeachment, the GOP will cease to be a national party if they ever cooperate in any effort to impeach Trump. They will sink to 20% party ID, and will forever be abandoned by the white working class voter that returned to them during the Obama years.

    Trump speaks their language. Rather than be a party that is “conservative”, it will be the new “Conservative Party”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  337. @ swc: I hear what you’re saying, but I’m unconvinced — indeed, unmoved. As analyzed by a GOP congressman or senator up for reelection, his own vulnerability would depend not on Trump’s national constituency, nor his total in the last electoral college election, but his estimation of the reaction of the GOP primary voters in his own state/district. Remember how many red states Trump didn’t win?

    The Dems would need every Dem vote and good-sized handfuls of Republicans in the current Congress. But Trump would lose all the squishes, and that might be just enough when added to the Dem votes, even in this Congress, if Trump pulls the rug out from under every GOP congressman and senator who’s gone on record in the last three weeks praising and expressing confidence in Mueller (i.e., all of them). And in the next Congress? The Senate looks safe in 2018, but the House is mercurial and Trump could easily misplay this into a down-ticket debacle. Indeed, if he can’t get a healthcare bill, tax reform, or anything else of significance because he’s completely focused on this stuff, the House probably will flip, and firing Mueller would make that just short of inevitable.

    When they floated this over the weekend, they got an immediate pushback from GOP members of Congress within hours, in public. There surely was more pushback in private.

    If he fires Mueller without a very damn good reason — like catching him red-handed, personally, in a completely fabricated leak — Trump will be galloping down a path that even the Light Brigade would have refused to pursue. (There! That’s my literary allusion for the night!)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  338. “Remember how many red states Trump didn’t win?” <– reference to 2016 GOP primaries

    Beldar (fa637a)

  339. swc, you’ve already commented on section 45.2, which I think you & I read the same way. But I’m curious if you might also have any info on the related questions I left in comments on Andrew McCarthy’s latest at NR, Can you obstruct a fraud:

    Mr. McCarthy, I read and agreed with your recent piece pointing out that AG Sessions need not, under 28 CFR § 45.2, have recused himself from the foreign intelligence investigation that has been referred to Mueller because by its terms, that regulation only applies to criminal investigations. (I still think it was appropriate, even if not strictly required by the letter of the regs, and I suspect that’s the conclusion he and his staff reached too.)

    Moreover, until the WaPo story hit last night, I’d been reasoning backwards from that regulation that since Mueller hasn’t disqualified himself from anything — at least to our knowledge; certainly Rosenstein hasn’t released anything re that (yet) — therefore, inferentially (relying on Mueller’s ability to read the regs and avoid obvious violations thereof), Mueller’s jurisdiction hadn’t expanded to include a criminal investigation of Trump in the days since Comey was fired.

    So if the WaPo’s leak is accurate (a BIG “if”), and Mueller has opened a criminal investigation into Trump for obstruction of justice, and if the potential means of obstruction included Trump’s conversations with, and ultimate firing of, Comey, I can’t fathom how Mueller can continue without violating section 45.2. Can you?

    I’m also puzzled by the timeline, and I’m wondering if you can shed any light on how long certain processes normally take within the DoJ paperflow and chains of responsibility.

    Comey claimed in his testimony that he hoped and intended to provoke the appointment of a special counsel by leaking, through a cutout, the contents of his Feb 14 memo and its recount of his private conversation with Trump that day about Flynn. And indeed, Mueller was appointed the day after the leak, so it seemed plausible when Comey claimed credit for bringing that appointment about.

    But of course, Rosenstein has never validated that. It’s not reflected, even indirectly, in the text of the press release announcing Comey’s appointment, nor in the terms of the implementing order. What I’m wondering is: How much lead time must go into such an announcement?

    I’ve been at BigLaw firms with conflicts checking systems, including ethics/conflicts specialists who can leave a paper-trail of considering all conflicts, like WilmerHale surely employs. I’ve read that DoJ has its own internal ethics experts who do the same drill. In private firms, in an emergency — “We have a TRO hearing this afternoon, can we take on Enron as a client? Quick, I need to know!” — that process can be done in a matter of a day or less. But can it within DoJ? Even in BigLaw, a preliminary “yes, we’re okay” often gets followed up as part of a weekly email poll of all partners, maybe all lawyers (“pls review all new matters on attached list by Friday & report any possible issues”), to confirm the preliminary analysis. Does DoJ work that way too, or would they wait until they were pretty sure to announce something this big?

    I’m guessing that instead, Rosenstein had at least gotten far enough toward deciding to appoint a special counsel that he’d already contacted Mueller, gotten his consent, and set both DoJ’s and WilmerHales’ conflicts teams into motion — and that all of that was underway WELL before Comey’s leak hit the press. (For that matter, we don’t even know that Mueller was Rosenstein’s first choice, do we? He might have been interviewing candidates, including but not limited to Mueller, for days or weeks, couldn’t he?)

    If so, Mueller probably didn’t have any reason to consider whether Comey might become involved, at the time he did his initial conflicts analysis and agreed to take the job. But if that’s now changed, how long — in the ordinary course of the DoJ, if there is such a thing when it comes to special counsel — should it take him to notify Rosenstein of the problem? Could he and/or Rosenstein still be waiting for an opinion on THAT from the DoJ’s ethics team? It seems like that drill should have started at least by whatever date Mueller sent his investigators to pick up Comey’s documents.

    I hope my comments might give you an idea or two for future articles. Regardless, I salute you again for your timely, in-depth, and profoundly rational analyses. You’re the single best resource on the internet for these particular topics, and I’m a grateful fan.

    I don’t know if Mr. McCarthy reads any of the NR comments — I’d frankly be surprised if he regularly did so. I’ve resisted the impulse to email him about this stuff: He’s been generous in previous email correspondence, but I’d be emailing him daily if I let myself, and I’m pretty sure he isn’t looking for a daily pen pal.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  340. I agree with SWC on two points:
    He doesn’t lose a thing firing Mueller. He looks bad now, he will look the same later.
    And the GOP would suffer badly if it impeached Trump.

    I do not agree with SWC that Trump is a victim of unfair treatment, because he did indeed obstruct justice and he’s probably going to get away with nothing more than losing the next presidential election.

    I hope Cruz primaries Trump, the field is narrow, and the GOP has a choice about its future.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  341. In my eyes GWB was a lying disaster.
    The 16 year war in Afghanistan is his baby. He should have leveled the country 9-12. And we would not be in the losing war situation he put us in. The man and the party were a fricking disaster. For two years they had control of everything and spent our money like drunk democrats. Pathetic.

    loonatic (31009b)

  342. Fire the entire FBI. These hacks are plotting against us.
    Be a man Trump. Swing the axe.

    loonatic (31009b)

  343. Northern Ireland – Here we come.

    mg (31009b)

  344. Will the republicans wake up and change the topic of Trump? Every republicant should be in front of a camera talking about Lynch and Clinton. Change the narrative you traitorous boobs.

    mg (31009b)

  345. More like Beirut, still over macho grande dustin:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/15/russia-probe-exposes-loretta-lynch-possible-wrongdoing-clinton-email-case/

    In a field of 16 candidates was this a surprise besides kasich and cruz who else got anywhere.

    I pointed out how the investigations had their affect sidelining w’ s agenda it also revealed what a snake in the grass Fleischer was.

    narciso (dff1d2)

  346. Beldar @340 & 341.

    The White House should have already done that with the leak that Trump shared laptop bomb intelligence with the Russians.

    “We will not comment on what intelligence information we share with foreign law enforcement with whom we cooperate in the war against terror. However, the matter has been referred to the FBI to investigate whether the Washington Post and its alleged sources provided material assistance to terrorists by publishing the story. There will be no further comment until that investigation is completed.”

    nk (dbc370)

  347. I don’t see how we couldn’t have gotten out of Afghanistan other than a Sherman solution.

    narciso (dff1d2)

  348. And maddow is wasting no time disavowing no 1 fan hodkinson

    narciso (dff1d2)

  349. Except someeaked that out of malice, no the info might have actually led to taking out baghdad. If Russian reports are to be believed.

    narciso (dff1d2)

  350. Ha, ha, ha! I just remembered that a President (but I can’t remember who) commented on his dealing with the Senate to the effect that “there’s 100 guys there each of who thinks he should be President”. With the internet, we have hundreds of thousands of guys who think they should be President. Me included. Just one day, guys. Just put me in charge for one day.

    nk (dbc370)

  351. narciso @357. Even if it were true, I didn’t think at the time, and I still don’t, that Trump did anything wrong. Only the media did something wrong. Eisenhower shared information with Zhukov as they were both advancing toward Berlin is my view of it. I don’t know how Patton felt about it but I doubt that he leaked it to the Chicago Tribune to hurt Eisenhower.

    nk (dbc370)

  352. FBI as a whole is not Anti-Trump but all the Political Positions and non Investigatory guys are lefties.

    Purge.

    Been saying this since last summer.

    Take Power and cut of the money and jobs.

    That is the source of their “power” — our money.

    Even if work goes undone, so long as Social Security Checks go out, we’ll be fine.

    It is OK if the bathrooms in Congress are disgusting like a third world nation and some payrolls go without being done.

    These types of employees are going nowhere unless you push them out.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  353. He’s being treated unfairly. The Marquess of Queensbury rules were tossed out the window long ago. Fight back or quit. There is no third option.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/15/2017 @ 9:59 pm

    I think the way to fight back and win is to focus on doing the things he promised to do as President. He wasn’t elected to fight with special prosecutors. He’s made some progress but he needs to focus on his promises and do more.

    Finally, if Trump follows Beldar’s advice and empowers a special prosecutor to target leakers, he may be targeting himself. Presidents and their White Houses leak, too, and Trump is probably no exception. It’s a useful tool to float trial balloons when deciding on policy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  354. So sorry. Another code not closed. I’m on a roll!

    DRJ (15874d)

  355. 292. nk (dbc370) — 6/15/2017 @ 7:24 pm

    If I were Sessions (or Rosenstein if Sessions thinks he’s recused from this), Mueller would already have a letter from me telling him to shut off any leaks from his office or staff and implying “or else”. And I’d leak it to the media.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/875526604671373312/photo/1

    The statement says “Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations. The Department of Justice has a long-established policy to neither confirm nor deny such allegations.”

    Nobody is sure what he is talking about, but it might be a leak that has not been published. He definitely seems to be saying that some leaks are false. Is he talking about more than one leak?

    And what is that about ‘officials,’ maybe not even being Americans? Is somebody blaming the Russians – or the British – for the leaks? Like Mueller contacted foreign governments for help?

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  356. The cabal of government agencies, branches of military intelligence, and big media organizations that combined to assassinate John Kennedy – cover it up, keep LBJ in office, and turn an obscure regional conflict into the Vietnam War – has either occupied the Oval Office or controlled the office holder since November 23, 1963: that’s over 50 years, it’s theirs, they own it, and it’s a members only club – and they are all honorable men, indeed.

    Then, along comes Donald Trump, an outsider, who like JFK, brushed aside the cabal’s ‘inevitable’ candidate and now occupies the catbird seat where he’s in position to expose the userpers and reveal the awful truth.

    Take special note that October 2017 is when all previously withheld government records pertaining to the JFK assassination are scheduled for release.

    That fact is the key to understanding Just how widespread the vicious campaign of character assassination being waged against Donald Trump actually is. To preserve itself the cabal must prevent exposure at all costs, up to and including killing Trump.

    The attack on Republican baseball players, pictures of Trump’s severed head, and the Assassination Play in Central Park can be seen as laying the groundwork – foreshadowing – to prepare the public to accept another ‘lone nut’ assassin charade.

    The charade has worked like magic so many times before: a sacrificial ‘lone nut’ is offered up as the killer, or would be killer: Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, the little pisspots (names escape me) who shot at Ronald Reagan and George Wallace. ‘Lone nuts’ all.

    Dice are rolling and the knives are out. If the cabal can’t drive Trump from office or make him knuckle under (with threats against his children’s lives) they’ve already started to publicize the notion of Trump’s early demise. After all, a picture’s worth a thousand words.

    Islamic terrorists might chop off Trump’s head, a mob of minorities (undocumented human beings) might be driven mad at the prospect of being walled off from food stamps, or a passionate Bernie Sanders fan (always Bernie, never Hillary) might open his door one day to find one of Eric Holder’s ‘walking’ guns on his doorstep. You never know when ‘fate’ will intervene and ‘magic’ bullets suddenly fill the air.

    Oh, yeah, remember it’s the mark of top flight professionals to make sure the whole dirty charade (the part they staged) is caught on tape. It makes the rotten scam so much easier to sell to a gullible public.

    Donald J Trump is in grave danger, and so are his wife, his children, and his grand children. The cabal doesn’t play games.

    ropelight (f923af)

  357. I take Roenstein’s press release at face value, Sammy. “Don’t believe what you read in the papers. It’s fake news, from fake sources, from the propaganda organs of the DNC, namely the MSM.”

    It’s the media who would like to spin it as something bigger than that. What you said. That there’s another leak coming that the Administration is worried about. I’m not buying it.

    nk (dbc370)

  358. Beldar @347. Andy McCarthy’s followup post on the Rosenstein delegation and Mueller investigation may not address your comment directly but does elaborate on the ways Mueller’s fishing expedition is a direct result of Rosenstein’s poorly crafted delegation.

    Rosenstein’s press release falls short of correcting the deficiencies but maybe he’s listening. Thanks for your educational commentary. The leak czar is an interesting idea, but wouldn’t it be better if DOJ and the intelligence community leadership could clean up their own mess through re-invigorated internal controls without another DC investigation?

    crazy (d3b449)

  359. Interesting ideas on stopping leaks.

    If I may offer this: maybe if the DJT administration stopped covering sh1t up and came clean, maybe the leaks would stop. Just a thought.

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  360. nk @366.

    I take Roenstein’s press release at face value, Sammy. “Don’t believe what you read in the papers. It’s fake news, from fake sources, from the propaganda organs of the DNC, namely the MSM.”

    If so, he’s making a bad mistake. He’s taking the position that there are no real leakers from within the U.S. federal government, whether at the Justice Department or intelligence agencies or anywhere. That is, of course, what such leakers, if any, would want him to believe, but it’s not the most likely explanation for the leaks, and it is curious that he seems to believe it.

    He doesn’t specifically say they could be ringers, or made up even by the news agencies, but seems to be leaning to the idea that they could be working for another nation. Did Mueller ask the French, British and other governments for any information they might have? Once you think of the idea it would hard to imagaine he did not, or will not soon.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  361. Seriously the Amazon has less of a flow of debris than what webe seen in 8 mths

    narciso (98dfd3)

  362. Let me take you down
    ‘Cause I’m going to Blueberry Fields
    Going to Maine
    And nothing to explain about
    Blueberry Fields forever
    Farming is easy with your cash
    Because it’s funding all you see…

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/16/governor-of-maine-proposes-state-sponsor

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  363. Sammy, I think Rosen stein is taking the position that we shouldn’t trust everything you read because it may not be accurate or the whole story. He is not saying there are no leakers — there may or may not be — but that we should not believe everything we read, whoever it comes from.

    DRJ (15874d)

  364. Corruptafornya
    illinois’s a losing bet
    texas rose cafe

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  365. @realdonald trump:

    I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

    Live by the Twitter, die by it……..he’s gone. Just a matter of time now.

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  366. Franken-Stein in 2020!

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  367. Sparkycuss predicts his own departure

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  368. There ain’t enuf soap in teh world to clean you up, Sparkycuss.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  369. Another day, another Trumpalanche.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  370. However, Sammy, I think we can believe Trump is being investigated for obstruction, or at least he thinks he is. Beldar’s reference to the Rove story (above) is spot on. Is Trump going to claim the defense that “the lawyers made me do it?”

    DRJ (15874d)

  371. 373, on the Yellow Rose, some say inevitable Blueing, others say Texit, I say the 5 state solution and write off San Antonio-RGV. 3 “Georgias” and a Wyoming-like West Texas would remain.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  372. When I was in college, in the ’70s, there was campus group that called itself Young Spartacus. They had a newspaper and everything. They were Maoists. For real, I talked to one. He said that the Soviet Union was a military dictatorship and that China represented true Communism. Any connection, Spartacus? Or do you just like gladiator movies?

    nk (dbc370)

  373. W bush was disastrous filth as his brother learned all too well when America resoundingly rejected his offer to lead

    happyfeet (70af5b)

  374. @realdonald trump:
    I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

    … sorry but this is accurate. Can’t get in trouble for accurate. Might piss people off but …. accurate.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  375. CNN: Mueller hires 13 more lawyers

    How many lawyers does it take to run a small, tight, focused investigation when you have a department full of them?

    crazy (d3b449)

  376. Sleazy Mueller had a trough

    E I E I and also O

    happyfeet (70af5b)

  377. Blah:

    Rosenstein issues a press release warning not to believe leakers. The leaker in chief tweets confirmation of the leak that he is under investigation. Who are we to believe lol.

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  378. 365. ropelight (f923af) — 6/16/2017 @ 7:37 am

    The cabal of government agencies, branches of military intelligence, and big media organizations that combined to assassinate John Kennedy

    I don’t think it was any kind of goernment agency. People in government agencies don’t tsay in the same position for decades so can’t even begin to direct a conspiracy. Individuals in government can be part of a conspiracy, but it can’t be directed from these perches, and it can’t be government qua government. There’s too much rotation in office.

    But there is a conspiracy to say there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. One of my theories is:

    Any widely circulated conspiracy theory, that comes in many variations, not one of which is (fully) consistent with (all) * the facts, is itself the product of a conspiracy, probably with the purpose of covering up the true facts, by providing alternate explanations for clues that may lead to the real truth. But not everything that gets worked into such conspiracy theories is such a clue.

    ——————
    * Even the variation closest to the truth will be distinguished from the truth in some key way.

    If there was a conspiracy, not one of the conspiracy theories is true.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  379. crazy

    I guess that would depend on what the investigation so far has turned up. Not looking good for DJT.

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  380. Spartacvs (faff70) — 6/16/2017 @ 8:52 am

    Rosenstein issues a press release warning not to believe leakers. The leaker in chief tweets confirmation of the leak that he is under investigation. Who are we to believe lol.

    Trump. He no longer believes this is fake news. Rosenstein, however, does, and so he won’t go after leakers because he thinks theer aren;t any in the U.S. government.

    News of investigation also comes about because people are being contacted by Mueller. If Dan Coats is one of them, that can’t be because of anything that happened during the campaign – it has to concern a possible obstruction of justice after Trump was in the White House.

    Now Trump may be wrong, (or hopeful?) that there’s no more investigation of the original collusion charges, and attention has turned to his interaction with Comey.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  381. Blah @385.

    It looks like Trump doesn’t trust Rosenstein any more.

    He thinks there are real leakers and Rosenstein is covering up for them.:

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  382. WTF is this, a Jobs Program?

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  383. @391. Perhaps. Everybody knows he’s guilty of the many crimes the other team committed in the last election if they could only prove it, right? Meanwhile real crimes are being ignored, why? Think about it…

    crazy (d3b449)

  384. Here are Trump’s tweets on the investigation:

    1.

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

    3:55 AM – 15 Jun 2017

    Comment: The spin that Russian involvement in the election would involve collusion between Trump and the Putin, and not penetration of the Trump campaign, por that Putin would ahve wanted to consult anyone, with Trump’s knowledge, with regard to the hacking or the publication of hacks, is politically motivated, because it would which would not be so useful politically to Democrats as penetration. And this keeps people away from the real facts. Still, trump might be reluctant to have that come out, especially since he was saying about Putin and Russia that he knew were not true. he may have been persuaded to say them for specious cynical political reasons, as well as false policy arguments. One key suspect is Mike flynn, who ma have fired by Obama on syuspicion of being a Russian spy back in 2013, except that Obama let it go at that because he is very cautious and always avoids making unnecessary decisions:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/russia-trump-manafort-flynn.html

    Mr. Flynn’s ties to Russian officials stretch back to his time at the Defense Intelligence Agency, which he led from 2012 to 2014. There, he began pressing for the United States to cultivate Russia as an ally in the fight against Islamist militants, and even spent a day in Moscow at the headquarters of the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence service, in 2013.

    Now with all that, of course, it is Donald Trump who is co-ordinating with Putin. Like he hired him because Putin told him to.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  385. 2.

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

    4:57 AM – 15 Jun 2017

    Comment: Has Donald Trump forgotten about Richard Nixon? Or does he think that was not a witch hunt? There were alot of charges made against Nixon that weren’t true, or weren’t fair, like about taxes.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  386. Number 3:

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Why is that Hillary Clintons family and Dems dealings with Russia are not looked at, but my non-dealings are?

    12:43 PM – 15 Jun 2017

    Leaks and accusations and because a special counsel is appointed when there is a suspicion of a conflict of interest, and Donald Trump is president and Hillary Clinton is not.

    Not that she would have been investigated very easily if she were president. The Clintons know how to cover things up, because they did do something wrong.

    By the way, Bill and Hillary Clinton had dealings with numerous countries.

    And in 1996 Janet Reno simply refused to call for a special prosecutor regarding the 1996 campaign and she even rebuked one of them who had stubled onto something with regard to Tyson Foods.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  387. Full blown constitutional crises……DJT is about to fire both Mueller and Rosenstein – probably by midnight tweet, sans any consultation with congress. He’s isolated, scared and desperate. Combine that with his impetuous behavior and inability to take advice, political or legal and you have the necessary conditions for DJT to initiate a full blown constitutional crisis. Trumps approval rating is under water at 56 to 39 and unfortunately we have a House of Representatives that isn’t really representative of the country and depends on Trumps base to survive. I predict dangerous times ahead.

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  388. ^ Mattis coup!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  389. Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Crooked H destroyed phones w/ hammer, ‘bleached’ emails, & had husband meet w/AG days before she was cleared- & they talk about obstruction?

    12:56 PM – 15 Jun 2017

    This is getting some details wrong, misses some of the most important things and doesn’t get right what the point of the Clinton/Loretta Lynch meeting was.

    The hammer smashing is what the FBI was told happened to her old Bkakberries whenever se stopped using one. theera re also two outright missing records of emails – on a laptop and a USB drive.

    First, it was not before she was cleared – it was before she agreed to an FBI interview, which she kept postponing. If she declined she would probably not be indicted before the election, but would also not be cleared. The downside was what if there was a RICO invesigation.

    Bill Clinton determined it was safe and he did that not because of anything Loretta Lynch said but because of what she did NOT say (“No, I won’t meet you”)

    Had Bill Clintonarranged to meet Loretta Lynch at some event, ot would have meant nothing becaseit would have bene atotal accident. If he had tried to schedule anything, it would have been declined.

    What he needed was a sudden opportunity. She would decline if she had been cautioned not to meet with him because he was atarget of an investgigation, and she would have been told at least that.

    If she didn’t it meant there was no ongoing RICO investigation into them. That was all he needed to know.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  390. Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    After 7 months of investigations & committee hearings about my “collusion with the Russians,” nobody has been able to show any proof. Sad!

    4:53 AM – 16 Jun 2017

    Some people need to be given immunity, biut taht probably won’t happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  391. Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    The Fake News Media hates when I use what has turned out to be my very powerful Social Media – over 100 million people! I can go around them

    5:23 AM – 16 Jun 2017

    Comment: Even when hia tweets are amplified by the news media, it’s probably not 100 million people. But it is everyone in Washington.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  392. Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Despite the phony Witch Hunt going on in America, the economic & jobs numbers are great. Regulations way down, jobs and enthusiasm way up!

    5:54 AM – 16 Jun 2017

    This is the same kind of tired nonsense all politicians say.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  393. Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

    6:07 AM – 16 Jun 2017

    “the man who told me to fire the FBI Director” = Rod Rosenstein. He can’t mean Mueller.

    Now Rosenstein can say that he had no idea he was being used.

    Sammy Finkelman (0828cd)

  394. Trump needed to fire everybody in the FBI – day 1 of his presiduncy.

    mg (31009b)

  395. Trump needed to fire everybody in the FBI – day 1 of his presiduncy.

    No. The American people need to fire DJT asap

    Now if only there were a mechanism……

    Spartacvs (faff70)

  396. I’m sure that Trump loves it that Patterico has a whole thread devoted to him, but can’t we PLEASE talk about something else?

    Kevin M (752a26)

  397. Then there s bolshakov, rfks back channel who mislead same about operation Anadyr. Luvkily the y2k had snagged penkovsky

    Trump today declared the Y2K crisis over and ordered the government to stop preparing for it. A number of agencies had been spending time and money doing just that.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  398. “we have a House of Representatives that isn’t really representative of the country and depends on Trumps base to survive. I predict dangerous times ahead.”

    As you can see, as a typical leftist, Sparkycuss isn’t real big on democracy or accepting the results of elections. The sonuva gun belongs in Venezuela, where he can get a taste of his own medicine.

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  399. Beldar — sorry I departed last night and left you hanging with a very good comment at 347 and thereafter. Will try to get to it in a bit.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  400. Trump canceled Obama’s amnesty for the parents of children who are US citizens (DAPA) but as he suggested many times in recent months, Trump has gone full-Obama when it comes to the Dreamers (DAPA). Trump will let them stay, despite promising his supporters he would reverse Obama’s immigration decisions. He has a big heart, you know, and he wants to pick our pockets to pay for it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  401. Sandy at 364:

    I really hadn’t given much thought to the idea that foreign government officials are behind some of the leaks.

    Trump has royally pissed off the French and Germans by pulling out of the Paris Climate accord. It might very well be that French and German gov’t officials are being fed info from inside the Trump Admin. by Obama holdovers, and they are then leaking to to the WaPo and NYT.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  402. Dreamers are covered by DACA, not DAPA.

    DRJ (15874d)

  403. DRJ, does DACA cover those in the armed forces? A cynic may reason that he’s holding out from repealing DACA in order to not to reduce force numbers, a rationale to consider upon the news of increasing the # of troops to Afghanistan.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  404. Fiscally, a DAPA repeal without a DACA repeal makes sense as it removes people that are closer near-term entitlements cost-drivers (Kevin M makes this point about the wrongheadedness of importing grandparents and middle-aged family relations quite often). The DACAns will be eating the same defined contribution and death panel – if your lucky- crap sandwich as all the legitimate folks.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  405. How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb – strike that – change a president? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-lawyers/index.html

    Judy Eaton (f6efc7)

  406. 410 – Col.
    ROTFLMAO
    Nothing to taste in Venezuela.

    mg (31009b)

  407. 410 – “As you can see, as a typical leftist, Sparkycuss isn’t real big on democracy or accepting the results of elections. The sonuva gun belongs in Venezuela, where he can get a taste of his own medicine.”

    Fat chance. They are rioting for medicine, water, meat, fresh fruit, coffee, toilet paper etc. The army is trying to decide if they want to remain in same boat with the ruling elites, …..and Chavez’s family and their cronies have socked away billions.

    IOW true socialism is going as well as it usually does

    harkin (873170)

  408. Any army of lawyers to find nothing then try to pin the tail on anyone who files a statement in error from a 400 page questionnaire.

    Our Democracy is lost if we allow this to stand. Mind boggling a non-crime is being investigated this way.

    And Rosenstein did a CYA … I do think he coordinated with Comey on it.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  409. Haiku for the Col at #412:

    Rasmussen says this:

    “MAGA polls real good”

    All others say not

    Appalled (d07ae6)

  410. They are doing their best to erode what little faith we citizens have in the administration of justice. The law is being used as a club to beat up on an adversary they couldn’t beat at the polls. Now that the leftist terrorists are actually shooting Republicans we may need to rethink the way we are dealing with Them. It’s no longer a fake bloody Trump head or a faked bloody Trump assassination day after day. Now they’re starting to shoot real people. And the summer’s just beginning.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  411. #423, It sure looks bad to me.

    Again, persecuting a guy for wanting an underling to say the truth is not a crime.

    That people think is OK a sign we are losing our Democracy.

    And by the way, they tried same crap with Bush but his DC buddies held the line.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  412. Wouldn’t it be interesting if POTUS convened an NSC meeting to discuss the current threat to things like say information and communication security and task them to report back in say 30 days with a strategy to protect America’s secrets. Bring in the cameras as they go around the table introducing themselves and let them go on record with the importance of what they’re supposed to be doing.

    POTUS stirs things up on twitter, but anybody can do that. Only a President can convene that meeting and deliver that message with everyone watching.

    crazy (d3b449)

  413. DC Lawyers — “let us keep investigating till we find something, anything ….”

    Now based on leaks money laundering.

    LOL.

    They have no idea what they are looking for.

    If they did, they would not be putting out this much chum.

    Frankly, I’d be more nervous if there was nothing being leaked.

    That means they are actually working on real things.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  414. “we have a House of Representatives that isn’t really representative of the country and depends on Trumps base to survive. I predict dangerous times ahead.”

    I guess we need to have voting privileges for the better people in our country, so they make up in quality what others make up in sheer numbers.

    Now, the only question I have, “Which are the better people, and how would this be different from fascism?”

    Kevin M (752a26)

  415. Another way Trump could box in the investigation is to give every individual under suspicion transactional immunity — meaning they can never be prosecuted for anything Mueller or any other special counsel claims they did.

    But then invite the Congressional committees to subpoena them all and ask them whatever questions they want.

    They would be subject to a perjury charge if they testified falsely before Congress, but they could testify without fear of being prosecuted about whatever has happened in the past.

    Let it all come out.

    If Trump is right, then he can turn his guns on the media, Dems, Comey, and the Special Counsel’s office.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  416. The downside for Democrats is that when attention turns back to the Clinton Foundation and email server (and it will now that Comey has been fired), the definition and threshold for obstruction of justice will have been clearly established.

    Neo (d1c681)

  417. Trump approval at 50%…

    Rasmussen, enough said

    Spartacvs (524141)

  418. Great idea SWC. I’m visualizing the spectacle of wall-to-wall coverage with experts and anchors assuring one another as each witness fails to deliver the next panel contains the one that will.

    The solution is more POTUS being POTUS cleaning up the swamp doing things only POTUS can do if he’s falsely accused as he says. So far he’s engaging on their battlfield and acting as expected. Change the fight.

    crazy (d3b449)

  419. Amazon Will Buy Whole Foods for $13.7 Billion

    This is going to create a problem for the Washington Post (and their anonymous source usage).
    Both would be owned by Amazon or Jeff Bezos (whatever).

    With Trump talking about an anti-trust action during the campaign, they are now walking straight into the DOJ meat grinder.

    Neo (d1c681)

  420. #431 and we all know the other polls are really accurate.

    Color me whatever but I trust Rasmussen more than I do CNN.

    The pollsters measure what they want then call it a good sample.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  421. Lefties gonna lefty!

    Colonel Haiku (903a0b)

  422. Amazon Will Buy Whole Foods for $13.7 Billion

    Bezos: Alexa, buy me something from Whole Foods.
    Alexa: Okay, Jeff, buying Whole Foods right now.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  423. Mr. Bartowski, that’s a good one. Thanks! Gave me a good belly laugh, and I need at least one of those a day.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  424. (I’m going to pay that joke my highest compliment, by stealing it.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  425. Great idea SWC

    Yes, but some of them would refuse the immunity and then take the 5th.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  426. “Donald J Trump is in grave danger ….”
    — ropelight

    “Is there any other kind?”
    — Col. Nathan R. Jessup

    Beldar (fa637a)

  427. #440 Not sure I buy that but no doubt the Left and DC Swamp wants to slow him down as best as possible.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  428. @ crazy (#367): Thanks for that link! I hadn’t seen that. The nub of Mr. McCarthy’s argument:

    The regulation Rosenstein was supposed to apply in appointing a special counsel called for him to “determine that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” He did not do that. As a rationale for appointing a special counsel, he cited the investigation then-FBI director James Comey had described in his March 20 congressional testimony. Comey said the investigation was a counterintelligence probe – not a criminal investigation.

    Yes, but:

    By the time Rosenstein first took a look at this, the foreign intelligence investigation had presumably — based not just on leaks but on things Comey has confirmed in testimony — already generated spin-off criminal investigations into at least Manafort and Flynn. So there had already been at least two “determin[ations] that a criminal investigation of a person or matter [was] warranted.”

    By their express terms, the special counsel regs explicitly contemplate that the special counsel’s jurisdiction then includes further spin-offs, per 28 C.F.R. § 600.4 (boldface in original):

    Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

    So Rosenstein has a continuing role in this. If Mueller has indeed formally expanded his jurisdiction to include a criminal investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice, Rosenstein had to be consulted on that first.

    Traditional policy is for the DoJ to say as little as possible in public before an indictment. I wonder if by simply referencing the counterintelligence investigation, Rosenstein was deliberately trying to avoid having to mention those already-on-going criminal investigations?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  429. When do you suppose the Democrats will turn on anti-union Bezos, who is now buying anti-union Whole Foods? Maybe that’s why he bought the Post.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  430. 428. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 6/16/2017 @ 12:06 pm

    Another way Trump could box in the investigation is to give every individual under suspicion transactional immunity — meaning they can never be prosecuted for anything Mueller or any other special counsel claims they did.

    How can he do that? Back at the end of March Donald trump wanted Michael Flynn given immunity (which srprised some people because if he thought that Michael Flynn had something bad to testify about him, he wouldn’t want that. Donald Trump obviously ddn’t think he had the power to do that – unless he was bluffing of course.

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

    4:04 AM – 31 Mar 2017

    But the committee wasn’t ready to do this.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-intelligence-committee-rejects-immunity-michael-flynn-n741061

    Apr 1 2017, 8:20 am ET

    Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request Rejected By Senate Intelligence Committee

    The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News.

    A senior congressional official with direct knowledge said Flynn’s lawyer was told it was “wildly preliminary” and that immunity was “not on the table” at the moment. A second source said the committee communicated that it is “not receptive” to Flynn’s request “at this time.”

    By the way, what do you mean by transactional immunity? Immunity for everthing he talks about? There was alsoi a thing called “use immunity” Thanks to the Oliver North case there really is no difference between “use immunity” as it was called and full immunity – hey tired to insulate the people who might indict from anything North might say but tha Surpreme Court rule neverthelss there had been contamination. Something like that.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  431. @ DRJ: Yup, appointing a Leaks Czar would be one of those guns that kicks as hard as it shoots.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  432. But then invite the Congressional committees to subpoena them all and ask them whatever questions they want.

    They would be subject to a perjury charge if they testified falsely before Congress, but they could testify without fear of being prosecuted about whatever has happened in the past.

    Including being recruited by the GRU when he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency? People would have to be preapred to let even that go.

    Let it all come out.

    That’s the only way to get this resolved.

    Some spies have been granted immunity, and if he violated the espionage act, there’s probably not going to be developed the evidence to prove it any time soon.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  433. @ Judy Eaton (#418): Hello! What a great intro to the link you left! Please comment more here, if you’re a regular lurker (apologies if you have been but I’ve just been missing it).

    Re your question as originally phrased, there have been suggestions before that it has a multi-part answer:

    Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    A1: How many can you afford?

    A2: None, lawyers only screw us.

    A3: It only takes one lawyer to change your light bulb to his light bulb.

    A4: Three. One to do it and two to sue him for malpractice.

    A5: Three. One to change it and two to keep interrupting by standing up and shouting “Objection!”

    A6: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.

    A7: 65. 42 to sue the power company for insufficiently supplying power, or negligent failure to prevent the surge that made the bulb burn out in the first place, 14 to sue the electrician who wired the house, and 9 to sue the bulb manufacturers.

    A8: You won’t find a lawyer who can change a light bulb. Now, if you’re looking for a lawyer to screw a light bulb…

    Even more variations at the link.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  434. Someone I knew is probably going to visit his wife’s family in Aruba – he considers it too dangerous to go into Venezuela now. Aruba is safe, right? People from the reime go there anyway so they’d want to keep it safe..

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  435. Re: JFK files. What would be interesting to see would be the release of William Manchester’s interview of Jacqueline Kennedy (about the argument between JFK and LBJ that morning) but that’s not held by the government.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  436. His attune actually denied he has asked for immunity, but if they give comedy alMost unlimited leeway:
    http://www.babalublog.com/2017/06/16/president-trumps-cuba-policy-speech-in-miami-obamas-failed-cuba-policy-is-canceled

    narciso (d1f714)

  437. The CNN link that Ms. Eaton posted above puzzles me on one point. Key paragraphs:

    Special counsel Robert Mueller has brought 13 lawyers on board to handle the Russia investigation, with plans to hire more, according to his spokesman Peter Carr.

    Mueller has assembled a high-powered team of top investigators and leading experts, including seasoned attorneys who’ve represented major American companies in court and who have worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud scandal.

    Among them are James Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, both of whom Mueller brought over from his old firm, WilmerHale. He’s also hired Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation.

    “That is a great, great team of complete professionals, so let’s let him do his job,” former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who investigated President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, told ABC News.

    While only five attorneys have been identified, concerns have come up over the political leanings of Quarles, Rhee and Weissmann.

    What I am puzzled by is why CNN chose to use the phrase “brought on board.” Clearly, Mueller himself, along with Quarles, Rhee, and Weissman, are all people whom Mueller has hired from outside the DoJ as temporary DoJ employees to work on the investigation(s) within his jurisdiction.

    But “brought on board” could also mean — and I suspect it does mean — that some of those lawyers may already have been DoJ employees, known to Mueller by reputation or past experience, but who were not (before Mueller’s appointment) working on any of those investigations.

    Could it also be a loose, and slightly imprecise way, of describing the size the entire team, including lawyers who were already part of these investigations before his appointment?

    Also missing from this story is any indication of the time-line. If Mueller had gone out and hired eight or ten additional lawyers from outside DoJ after deciding to broaden his foreign intelligence and existing spin-off criminal investigations to include an obstruction of justice investigation of Trump, that would be one thing. If five of those lawyers were involved in running down leads last year and aren’t actively involved anymore, that would be something else entirely different.

    Every particle of news is being spun as viciously as possible to make it bigger and more ominous, and CNN of course is among the systematically worst offenders.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  438. Now DRJ, that should surely make you feel better about forgetting to close your tag, doesn’t it? (I didn’t do it for that purpose, but I do hope it makes you feel better.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  439. This is what what i was pointing out:
    https://faustasblog.com/2017/06/colombias-pro-farc-land-reform/

    narciso (d1f714)

  440. 427. Kevin M (752a26) — 6/16/2017 @ 12:02 pm

    voting privileges for the better people in our country, so they make up in quality what others make up in sheer numbers.

    Now, the only question I have, “Which are the better people, and how would this be different from fascism?”

    Fascism is justification for dictatorship, in principle, without needing any further justification, like a a hereiditary monarchy does.

    What that is, is an unequal franchise.

    We have that. But it is somewhat random. It’s called the United States Senate.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  441. Let a tight-lipped subpoena-toting grand jury-convening Leak Czar bring some firepower to bear on this problem.

    A ‘Leak Czar’… for a Republican administration under siege for Russian collusion and possible OOJ issues. Hmm. Howzabout a more base-friendly, blue collar, ‘perfectly clear’ name. Like: ‘The Plumbers.’

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter “Watergate, Watergate, Watergate” Words Of Wonder:

    “My friend Ollie always wants to take a lot of pictures. I’m afraid he’ll catch me picking my nose… he wouldn’t print that would you, Ollie… Oh, you’ll want a level, don’t you… Good evening. This is the thirty-seventh time I’ve spoken to you from this office.”

    http://watergate.info/1974/08/08/nixon-resignation-speech.html

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  442. WTF is Sessions doing? He should be cuffing Hillary. Pathetic.

    mg (31009b)

  443. Whitewater was about a failed real estate transaction that the razirbacls were a party too, Watergate was about broadly political surveillance what is this about?

    narciso (d1f714)

  444. @394 Colonel Haiku

    Jared Kushner’s Ties

    Jobs Pogrom for Democrats

    Lawyers Round Them Up

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  445. Rip helmet kohl

    narciso (d1f714)

  446. This, not the Russian BS and certainly not dutiful immigration enforcement, will be downfall of Jeffery Beauregard Sessions

    urbanleftbehind (22370e)

  447. I think Scooter Libby taught us that you simply never testify at these special counsel things.

    Their entire game is to get testimony, find a contradiction, charge perjury, and use that threat to force someone to turn state’s evidence and give up something really juicy. But if the NSA intercepts already don’t have anything, what is there? And Scooter Libby didn’t have anything to give either – it’s just that the threat had to be followed through.

    Ingot (e5bf64)

  448. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, hires his own lawyer in Russia probe

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/16/trumps-personal-lawyer-michael-cohen-hires-his-own-lawyer-in-russia-probe/?utm_term=.ef7d22ee6c3d

    “I will be the greatest jobs president that God has ever created.” – Donald Trump

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  449. Yes , the pro err is the punishment, doesn’t matter your not guilty, it happen to Steven berry, no one cared it happened to Maggie Williams full waterwotks

    narciso (d1f714)

  450. I told you by the time the leftists are finished the only people employed will be lawyers and all being paid with taxpayer dollars. The left has created a works project for DC attorneys. This entire ting is a scam just to show us never to win another election.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  451. Sandy at 443: Flynn was being asked to testify before Congress, and Trump said Congress should give him Congressional immunity, which they can do, in order to prevent him from asserting his right to remain silent. That’s what happened with Oliver North, and that’s why his conviction was later thrown out. On appeal, the government was unable to prove that the testimony North gave to Congress under a grant of immunity was not used by the prosecution in building their case against him. It didn’t matter that the immunity came from Congress — it came from “the government.”

    The President has the authority to give immunity from prosecution. This is “transactional immunity”. Basically its a pardon in advance of prosecution — a pledge to not prosecute someone for what they have already done.

    “Use immunity” is a promise to not use any statements given by the defendant while under questioning in a criminal prosecution that might later develop. “Use immunity” comes into play when the prosecutors and agents want to question someone who might later be charged, and the person under suspicion wants to either be cooperative or otherwise try to explain their actions. In general it just means that no agent of the government will take the stand in any later criminal proceeding and tell the jury what it is the person said during the course of the interview. Use Immunity agreements expressly provide, however, that information derived from the interview can be used to further the investigation and turn up other information, and that other information may be used in a later criminal prosecution.

    So, as the ultimate prosecuting authority, Trump could confer transactional immunity on everyone involved, based on the condition that they all appear before Congressional hearings and answer questions. Because they cannot face criminal prosecution, they cannot take the Fifth Amendment and remain silent.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  452. @456 narciso

    I don’t know about failed. It was part savings and loan scam. Part payoff for Clintons a la cattle futures. Part contract for deed real estate rip off. It wasn’t a long term gain for Jim and Susan McDougal, I will grant you that.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  453. Beldar,

    It does make me feel better, much better. But I’ve done it there times so you have two to go.

    DRJ (15874d)

  454. Shorthand pin, plamegate was ostensibly about the leaking of a covert operative, but she want really covert, and it east as part of a vendetta

    Yes shipwrecked somewhat like Oliver north, he is the fellow that every one has spoken about but whose Count we have get to know.

    narciso (d1f714)

  455. Urbanleftbehind 416,

    That’s a nice thought. There are 141 Dreamers in the military –141 of them — but I’m not convinced they are at risk. Enlisting in the military gives all noncitizen immigrants a special fast-track to citizenship, and Trump continued that program in April.

    DRJ (15874d)

  456. I’ve always wondered about that. Grants of immunity in a multi-jurisdictional system.

    — Mr. nk, where were you on the night of the third?
    — I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me under the laws of the United States.
    — The clerk will read Mr. nk’s grant of immunity into the record.
    (Grant of immunity is entered into record.)
    — Now, Mr. nk, where were you on the night of the third?
    — I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me under the law of the State of Alabama.
    — How can it incriminate you under the laws of the State of Alabama? This is a federal investigation.
    — I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me under the laws of the States of Alabama
    — Alright, Mr. nk, we’ll get you a grant of immunity from Alabama too.
    (Two weeks later.)
    — Mr. nk, your grants of immunity from the United States and the State of Alabama are in the record. Now! Where were you on the night of the third?
    — I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me under the laws of the State of Alaska.

    nk (dbc370)

  457. When the FBI hacks kill President Trump. People will shoot first and ask questions later, maybe.
    The lawyers in Washington have created this hacking of America. What a shameful occupation.

    mg (31009b)

  458. It must be said… if Clinton had won the election and had found herself under investigation, and a Special Counsel had been named and that SC had a close relationship with one of the key figures in the investigation and the SC had brought lawyers on board – lawyers who contributed to the Trump campaign and to other Republican candidates in some cases dating back to the mid-80s – does anyone here really think that would fly, that would be allowed?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  459. @ nk (#472): That’s two belly laughs I’ve gotten in one afternoon from the comments here. Thanks!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  460. CBS News, from which I first heard of Rosenstein’s statement, doesn’t seem to have caught the nuance, both today and yesterday, that Rosenstein is disagreeing with Donald Trump about the source of the leaks.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  461. I’m stealing Chuck’s joke, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  462. But I will credit him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  463. @ Col. H (#474): You’re a man who knows that both the goose and the gander like their sauce!

    Texas elects all of its state-court trial and appellate judges, so part of professional drill before every court appearance in a new forum is to look up the judge, and as part of that, to find out whether he was was elected or appointed in the first place, and whether he’s been re-elected, and when he’s next up for re-election. I also check out what kind of practice he had before taking the bench, and whether it was with a big or small firm and whether it’s anyone I’ve ever heard of or dealt with. Those are valid data to consider, and sometimes they are predictive or explanatory. I duly pass them along, with my subjective impressions, to my clients — but only orally, with instructions that they not go into any notes! (they’re privileged, but who do you think reviews documents in camera to see whether a privilege claim should be upheld when challenged?). It would be naive — professional malpractice, or very close — to ignore all this when I’m sizing up the public official, supposedly dispassionate but completely human, before whom I’m about to appear.

    But it would also be malpractice, worse malpractice, to rely unthinkingly on all these stereotypes, or to presume that everyone will perform as their respective stereotypical profiles might suggest.

    If someone were to start drawing conclusions about me from public records of my political donations, they’d probably be confused, and very likely misled. I try to make all my contributions strategic, which is very different from saying I always contribute to the candidates I like best myself. I thought about sending Bernie a dollar or two, and might have if I had thought he had any real chance of beating Hillary, because I thought he’d be easier for the GOP nominee to beat, another McGovern. But I’ve pulled that trigger and donated to other Democrats, particularly in small, down-ballot races where a donated dollar gets proportionately more impact.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  464. There you go, DRJ, another unclosed tag for my tally. I’ve actually done that dozens and dozens of times, here and anywhere else I regularly comment that permits HTML.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  465. This is just a sample of the kind of crap Californians have to put up with. Had a friend from Carlsbad, Ca forward this to me in an email… http://youtu.be/1F3phODl0g4

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  466. Look, if Trump is willing to run into this wall head-on and damn the torpedoes, he should just pardon himself. He could pardon everyone else too. It would be an absolute fait accompli, constitutionally immune from reversal, unreviewable by any court (state or federal).

    But a pardon would have exactly the same effect that swc already described for immunity grants: Once pardoned, a witness has no reasonable basis to plead the Fifth and refuse to testify, meaning he may sit in jail for contempt of court until he does testify.

    And of course, his impeachment jeopardy would zoom from “still improbable” to “bet your bottom dollar.”

    See the way this whole checks-and-balances thing works? It’s the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle applied to politics — when you even observe one aspect, that changes some other, different aspect, and the whole system is constantly in dynamic motion that is semi-predictable at best.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  467. Text from the email…

    “Here is what we have to put up with in CA with our Democratic supermajority!

    This is the recall campaign where I helped gather signatures last month in Fullerton. (in your old neck of the woods!)

    The CA Democrat party is getting really nervous that the recall of the Orange County Senator Josh Newman will succeed (about ½ on signatures in 1 month) so these are the typical tactics that are being used on signature gatherers (plus a lot of other things that they are trying within the assembly).

    Sounds like fascism at its finest!”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  468. Even the potential for bias or a conflict of interest must be mitigated. Mueller shouldn’t take on anyone who has made any political contributions, whatever the party. Even he is a walking issue.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  469. Self deception buy the FBI has led them to believe their own lies.
    What a fricken group.

    mg (31009b)

  470. by bye

    mg (31009b)

  471. In other news gov kitzhaber has been cleared of influence peddling charges

    narciso (d1f714)

  472. Every trial lawyer who’s done the job very long has had a client, or many, who (like Trump) refuses to listen, who refuses to follow advice, and who refuses to keep his mouth shut and control his emotions. They usually insist that doing it “their way” will be just the piece of brilliance needed to win the case.

    A close friend of mine represented such a client recently, the defendant in a real estate fraud jury trial. The defendant did pretty well on direct examination, just as they’d practiced. But the plaintiff’s lawyer had figured out where the defendant’s buttons were: He was angry to be there, he thought everyone was conspiring against him, he didn’t even trust his own lawyer very much, and he blamed the judge for everything. The plaintiff’s lawyer easily baited him into saying all these things during cross-examination, even calling the proceedings “a circus” — at which point the judge, quite predictably, excused the jury and then gave the defendant one of the sternest lectures about contempt of court I’ve ever heard.

    (Mind you, my colleague had repeatedly warned the defendant of exactly this likelihood. He could see the train wreck coming from five miles away, but the man would not listen.)

    But even though the jury didn’t hear that lecture from the judge, they’d heard what led to it. And ALL of the defendant’s credibility and natural sympathy, which my friend had worked hard to establish during direct examination, had been shredded irreparably. The resulting plaintiff’s verdict included a big chunk of punitive damages. All of the jurors afterwards identified that testimony as the turning point, the decisive point, in the trial.

    Now, I’ve been in some trials that actually could fairly have been described as “a circus,” and I’ve been home-towned, and I’ve practiced before judges who’d taken the bench with a five-figure net worth and left the bench two years later with a seven-figure net worth despite no outside employment and a five-figure annual salary from the county.

    But even then — indeed, especially then! — it’s an awful, horrible, terrible, stupid, self-destructive idea to start blaming everyone around you, especially over something that resulted from your own mistake to begin with.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  473. I can’t figure out if the FBI is a carnival or a circus.

    mg (31009b)

  474. @472 nk

    Speaking of Susan McDougal-you can be immune from prosecution but not from being the victim of a robbery gone wrong.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  475. @ Col. H, who wrote (#485):

    Even the potential for bias or a conflict of interest must be mitigated. Mueller shouldn’t take on anyone who has made any political contributions, whatever the party. Even he is a walking issue.

    DoJ has regulations about the entire subject, including this list of “approved activities” in particular (all italics mine):

    All employees may:
    A. Register and vote in any election.

    B. Express opinions as individuals on political subjects and candidates privately and, to the extent consistent with the restrictions above, publicly.

    C. Display a political picture, sticker, badge, or button in situations that are not connected to their official duties, but employees restricted as outlined in 1-4.420 may not distribute such material.

    D. Participate in the nonpartisan activities of a civic, community, social, labor, or professional organization, or of a similar organization.

    E. Be members of a political party or other political organization and participate in its activities to the extent consistent with the restrictions set forth above.

    F. Sign a political petition as individuals.

    G. Make a financial contribution to a political party or organization, except to one’s federal employer.

    H. Take an active part, as a candidate or in support of a candidate, in a nonpartisan election.

    I. Be politically active in connection with a question which is not specifically identified with a political party, such as a constitutional amendment, referendum, approval of a municipal ordinance or any other question or issue of a similar character.

    J. Serve as an election judge or clerk, or in a similar position to perform nonpartisan duties as prescribed by state or local law, subject to the restrictions set forth above about certain employees not undertaking such activity in concert with political entities.

    K. Otherwise participate fully in public affairs, except as prohibited by law, in a manner which does not materially compromise their efficiency or integrity as employees or the neutrality, efficiency or integrity of their agency.

    I’m pretty sure that the DoJ ethics guys who had to pass on Mueller’s potential conflicts, and those of everyone he’s hired, would consider themselves to be prohibited by these regs from ever considering, or making any note of, past political contributions as a factor in their vetting. And thus it should be.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  476. Well the field agents are different from headquarters attitude, they former were the ones conducting the investigation, and comedy (spit) in their face.
    In the Stevens case, the fraudulent evidence was being furthered by the feds key witness, William allen, who was a seriously corrupt individual: but it turns out his handler Mary Ann kempner sic had a serious (ahem) conflict with him. It was Allen’s veco scandal that prompted the huntresd’s rise and the ethics reforms that were ultimately aimed at her.

    narciso (d1f714)

  477. I can’t figure out if the FBI is a carnival or a circus.

    It’s a wrecking ball, and you can’t stop it.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  478. Oh, yeah. And they don’t have to be bad people. One client, the nicest guy you could ever meet and bright and educated too, called as an adverse witness in the plaintiff’s case in chief, did not understand the simple advice, “Just listen to the question carefully and answer it as fairly as you can. Then wait for the next one. Do not explain. Do not justify.” He and the plaintiff’s attorney stretched what should have been two hours of testimony to almost two days. I felt sorry for the judge.

    nk (dbc370)

  479. Brenda Murray the head of that detail, after being reprimanded by judge Sullivan, was still allowed to investigate allegedly corrupt officials in alabama another official William west prosecuted Jeffrey sterling in the Merlin link, one official, bottini I believe, committed suicide.

    narciso (d1f714)

  480. Sammy

    You got anything on Mary Mahoney?

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  481. Sorry. “Do not volunteer. Do not explain. Do not justify.”

    nk (dbc370)

  482. The byline was by one of the harpies that stalked the huntress:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24727183.html
    bottini was obviously not the official

    narciso (d1f714)

  483. Hers another piece:
    abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/sen-ted-stevens-prosecutors-hid-evidence-report-concludes

    narciso (d1f714)

  484. Again, Beldar, that scenario would highlight, if roles were reversed, the Democrat operatives with bylines aka the media would make life a living Hell for anyone who had the misfortune of being called to be a part of it. What they can get away with doesn’t make it the right thing to do. And Mueller would appear to have a major conflict given his close, friendly, mentoring relationship with that cur Comey.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  485. Stein who is the allegorical rack himself relates another travismockasha ”
    https://www.steynonline.com/4209/the-reincarceration-of-conrad-black

    He doesn’t mention in that case fitzs protection of radler, who helped strip away blacks empire

    narciso (d1f714)

  486. Huma hired the fmr deputy for the rocket docket hence no charges as yet.

    narciso (d1f714)

  487. Funny. And I just saw this on PJ Media:

    The Lawyers’ Civil War

    America is in a “cold civil war,” and its shock-troops are lawyers.

    By David P. Goldman June 16, 2017

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  488. Well the great upheaval shows how the jacobins were premature sjw like robespierre (who was a lawyer like Fidel)

    narciso (d1f714)

  489. For Kevin, who wants to talk about something else besides Trump.

    A judge I feel sorry for right now is the judge in the Michelle Carter case. He got caught between the stupid Massachusetts legislature which does not have a law against assisting suicide and a prosecutor who thinks talking someone into killing himself (a la Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs) should be punished.

    nk (dbc370)

  490. The ACLU is on the side of Hannibal Lecter. Freedom of speech.

    nk (dbc370)

  491. I feel sorry for the family, but I’m no lawyer.

    mg (31009b)

  492. For example mg, when ten caught the Castro regimes 40 or mole on the state department, it was a field agent that did it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  493. Two families. Two damaged children.

    nk (dbc370)

  494. And if you look around, netayahu would say if you’re nit under investigation in Israel, your probably do g nothing sane as with berlyscini in Italy.

    narciso (d1f714)

  495. unleash the IDF.

    mg (31009b)

  496. I think producing stones movies was the real crime on mil nuns lart

    http://Www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.796109

    narciso (d1f714)

  497. @ nk (#507): We agree again. This would be a good topic for a new post! Until then I’ll lazily copy something I wrote over at Instapundit:What I’m about to write is one of those things that only a lawyer would write, and it helps explain why so many people find lawyers repulsive.

    If all she was to him was a friend, even a girlfriend or a fiancee — if she wasn’t his parent or legal guardian, his registered nurse, his psychiatrist, his counselor, or someone else who had some other legal duty to use better-than-average judgment, better-than-average prudence, better-than-average concern for his health and welfare, then I don’t believe she ought properly have been convicted of any crime.

    There is a whole ton of conduct that may be shocking, immoral, reprehensible, and a reason to condemn and shun. As reported, this defendant’s conduct was all that and more.

    But if he’s an adult who’s not under any sort of conservatorship, and she’s not assumed some special responsibility for him, his own decision must be considered a “superseding cause,” something that the civil law would describe as the “sole proximate cause,” and I think the criminal law ought to as well. If Massachusetts law indeed permits that, I hope the defendant’s lawyer has properly made and preserved appropriate objections under federal law, but that would be a very long longshot. Normally state courts have to decide these issues and their decisions aren’t subject to interference from the federal courts.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  498. Yes extreme r negligence but manslaughter then again. After the baby shaking. Any and the amirault witchhunt, lets say bay state justice doesn’t impress.

    The Alexandria shooter resembles anitber case that originated up there. Professor Amy bisbop

    narciso (d1f714)

  499. And the judge drove home to his gated community in a BMW.

    mg (31009b)

  500. There is one thing that troubles me about the Massachusets criminal code. The part I was able to access does not set out the elements of the crime of manslaughter. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265

    Section 13. Whoever commits manslaughter shall, except as hereinafter provided, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail or a house of correction for not more than two and one half years. Whoever commits manslaughter while violating the provisions of sections 102 to 102C, inclusive, of chapter 266 shall be imprisoned in the state prison for life or for any term of years.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section13

    I didn’t think that was Constitutional anymore, but maybe it is defined elsewhere in the statutes. Illinois is a Model Penal Code state so I only dealt with it in 1L Criminal Law.

    nk (dbc370)

  501. I’ll give you an example of another situation in which a court has decided that for public policy reasons, they are going to invoke the “sole proximate cause” doctrine to cut off case-by-case comparisons of circumstances:

    In Texas, and I think in most other states, criminal defense lawyers are effectively immune from legal malpractice claims based on the convicted defendant’s claim that his conviction was due to his lawyer’s negligence, defined in this context as a failure to use the same degree of care that a reasonably competent lawyer would have used in the same or similar circumstances. Unless and until the defendant gets his conviction reversed, Texas law conclusively presumes that his guilt of the crime — which the defendant is “estopped from denying” while his conviction is still in place — is the sole proximate cause of his incarceration.

    (I tried very hard to prove that immunity from malpractice didn’t prevent me from suing on behalf of a convicted defendant whose DWI conviction came after he felt obliged to plead guilty when his criminal defense lawyer broke an express contractual requirement that he show up for the trial in person, rather than sending a subordinate or relying on local counsel. I managed to thread a path to get the case submitted to a jury, and looked forward to fighting the case in an inevitable appeal, but the jury wasn’t buying: They couldn’t get past the fact that my guy admitted that yes, he had been drinking, and they were uninterested thereafter in the question of whether he was nevertheless entitled to the benefit of his contract requiring a particular lawyer to help him win on the critical issue of whether he was legally intoxicated.)

    I likewise think that a similar policy argument — and the danger to all our civil liberties if the courts impose on us duties to be responsible for the conduct of other legal adults for whom we’ve undertaken no special responsibility — should bar the State from convicting this defendant for the voluntary action to take his own life.

    Some years ago there was a terrific play — I saw it on Broadway, in fact — called “Whose Life Is This Anyway?” I was less fond of the movie version, mostly because I thought Barbra Streisand was badly miscast in the lead role as the would-be suicide fighting to prove her legal competency. But it raises and explores these issues, and the intersection between law & morality over them, quite well.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  502. Errata (#520): Meant to write: … should bar the State from convicting this defendant for the deceased’s voluntary action to take his own life.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  503. I would also have acquitted her, but by applying my rule of lenity. “If I am going deprive a person of up to twenty years of her liberty, I want a law that clearly tells me I must. I will not make it up myself.”

    nk (dbc370)

  504. The Massachusetts statute under which she was convicted apparently is phrased in terms of “wanton and reckless conduct.” (See pp. 75-87 of the Massachusetts Pattern Jury Instructions.) There’s language in there — I don’t know if it was in her charge — about failure to act when there’s a duty to act arising out of some special relationship. But special relationship or not, there’s no indication that the statute could apply to “conduct” consisting solely of speech. I think that might give her a pretty good due process/lack of due notice argument, if but only if the proper objections were made and preserved.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  505. That is the other thing that troubles me about this case. The mens rea. The evidence (admittedly, I got it from news stories on the internet) does not show wanton and reckless or criminal negligence. It shows malice aforethought. A specific intent on her part to have that young man take his life.

    Now, if Massachusetts had a law against enabling suicide, this would have been cut and dried. But it is bizarre that extreme mens rea for murder but no actus reus other than speech equals manslaughter.

    nk (dbc370)

  506. Ah, it was a bench trial, so there was no charge. But presumably the law reflected in those instructions is what the trial judge was following, at least in theory.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  507. But presumably the law reflected in those instructions is what the trial judge was following, at least in theory.

    It would be so in Illinois. Our pattern instructions are annotated to reflect the latest decisions and they are the primary source for the law to be applied in the case.

    nk (dbc370)

  508. Reading the NYT article, I have the impression her failure to act (not notifying anyone that he was attempting suicide) was the deciding factor.

    Taunton is an old mill and factory town, and part of the Portuguese section of the state.

    kishnevi (857e3e)

  509. Even back then they were playing games:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1976/01/07/archives/new-jersey-pages-4-in-watergate-appeal-
    say-sirica-barred-a-fair.html?_r=0

    narciso (d1f714)

  510. Well, the ACLU seems to be up in arms over speech as conduct. Not to be confused with conduct as speech. Even if they don’t take up her appeal, I’ll bet they move to participate as amici.

    And on the question of appeal, that’s what the judge might be doing too. An acquittal is final and unappealable, and that would have been the end of the matter. By finding her guilty, he did in a way pass the buck to a higher pay-grade.

    nk (dbc370)

  511. “and I don’t remember church bells
    Or the money I put down
    On the white picket fence and boardwalk
    on the house at the edge of town
    Oh but boy do I remember
    the strain of her refrain
    and the nights we spent together
    and the way she called my name”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  512. My baby called me up
    She said, “Why don’t you ever take me out?
    Pick me up in your brand new car
    You shake the short change from your old fruit jar”

    I put on my dancin’ shoes
    We headed straight for the rhythm and blues
    The music was hot, but my baby was not
    I’ve got a rocket in my pocket
    Finger in the socket
    No way for you to stop it
    Got to rock it

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  513. Just watchin’ Little Feat Live at the Rainbow Theater
    The mad skillz of Lowell George
    Another man who lost it all to drugs

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  514. With the Tower of Power horn section… don’t get much better than that!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  515. “The Fan” live at Ultrasonic Studios… http://youtu.be/YXxv8ZtH2v4

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  516. Very good hypothetical posed over at Powerline blog.

    Suppose 30 days ago Trump went to Comey and said, “As President, I order you to close the investigation of Gen. Flynn, and reassign all investigative resources to the highest priority investigations in their respective field divisions.”

    Also suppose he sent a similar directive to DOJ.

    Lets assume he said nothing else.

    Please explain the basis upon which a special prosecutor could be named?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  517. @ swc (#537): To investigate Flynn? Or Trump?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  518. Well he wouldst do anything of the sort, maybe you’ve dealt with comey , but due process seems to be the farthest thing from his mind.

    narciso (d1f714)

  519. For what offense Beldam, there is nothing to this story,

    narciso (d1f714)

  520. Beldar — anyone. Flynn or Trump

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  521. They must get to the bottom of the Nothingburger, narciso! what… have you gone mad?!?!?!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  522. The Lawyers’ Civil War

    America is in a “cold civil war,” and its shock-troops are lawyers.

    By David P. Goldman June 16, 2017

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca) — 6/16/2017 @ 6:00 pm

    Lots of mini balls in Mueller’s Corps.

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  523. @516 Beldar

    Conspiracy to commit suicide?

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  524. “estopped from denying”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/16/2017 @ 6:55 pm

    That’s what Sophia Vergara said.

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  525. Can she prove she didn’t have a heads up about Aaron Hernandez?

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  526. This is off-topic at this point in the thread, but I want to add a postscript to my earlier comment about DACA. The Trump Administration (via DHS) said yesterday that the DACA program remained in effect. Now the White House says Trump hasn’t decided what to do witH DACA.

    Judging by her Twitter feed, Ann Coulter wasn’t happy at yesterday’s news but I don’t think Trump really cares what she says. He does care what the polls say. I wonder what his internal polls say?

    DRJ (15874d)

  527. And if we’re going to talk about hypotheticals, if Cruz had been elected then today’s White House news would have been relocating the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

    DRJ (15874d)

  528. I’m unpersuaded by the Power Line article, for reasons I explained in a comment I left there (most of which I’ve already said here before in one comment or another):

    I don’t think a POTUS can be prosecuted for an alleged crime by the federal government while he’s still POTUS. Period, full stop. Any prosecutor acting in the name of the United States is ultimately acting under the POTUS’ authority under the Appointments Clause (otherwise he’s a private citizen abridging someone’s civil rights under color of law), and the POTUS can’t be both prosecutor and defendant in the same case. The POTUS is absolutely unique in this regard, but only while he’s still POTUS.

    The House & Senate, though, can nevertheless decide that a legal action taken within the POTUS’ constitutional authority is nevertheless something that was done with an improper or illegal purpose, with corrupt intent, to obstruct justice. Congress can (as with Nixon and Clinton), but need not, draw upon criminal law concepts of obstruction of justice in deciding whether the POTUS is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the definition of which is constitutionally left entirely to them. And once impeached and convicted and removed from office, the new POTUS, through an appropriatedly delegated prosecutor, can certainly prosecute the ex-POTUS.

    Then, as in any other obstruction of justice prosecution, the jury would be free to conclude from a pattern demonstrated by multiple circumstantial evidence data-points that the purported justification for the admittedly legal action was merely pretextual, and it was actually motivated by an improper or illegal purpose (e.g., to protect Flynn as a friend or to prevent Flynn from flipping and implicating Trump; please note, I’m speaking entirely hypothetically here, and acknowledge that there’s no public direct evidence to support such a claim, yet anyway, even though Trump insists on creating new circumstantial evidence every time he speaks or tweets about this dispute). The analog would be in at-will employment relationships, where either the employer or employee can end the relationship with or without cause, with or without notice, and with or without any legitimate reason, or even for an ugly reason — so long as it’s NOT for a prohibited reason like racial discrimination or retaliation for the filing of a workers compensation claim.

    I do not accept that the POTUS’ immunity while in office from criminal prosecution by itself means that everything he does is immunized from later criminal prosecution by a diferent POTUS. And I don’t think it’s at all self-evident that Holder’s or Lynch’s or even Obama’s conduct in office was only a “political” question either. Actually indicting them and convicting them now would present very difficult practical problems, not limited to finding a venue (SDNY? DC?) that satisfied the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights while nevertheless offering a jury pool that might actually convict rather than hanging or acquitting via jury nullification. But it’s not legally foreclosed until the relevant limitations periods have all expired. And all the privileges — attorney-client, executive, work product, investigatory, etc. — that Obama, Holder, and Lynch have always hidden behind and could previously have asserted now in court, belong to the current POTUS, who can waive them and compel testimony.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  529. (Except Obama’s, Holder’s, and Lynch’s Fifth Amendment privilege, which is personal to them, and which they’d certainly want and need!)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  530. It’s about time…

    “LEFTIES AREN’T GOING TO LIKE THE NEW RULES: BREAKING: Right-Wing Activists Jack Posobiec and Laura Loomer Rush Stage, Disrupt Controversial Rendition of ‘Julius Caesar.’ Is this dumb? Yeah, but that never stopped lefties and now they’re getting to see what it feels like to have your hair pulled.

    Related: Ace: It is imperative we begin emulating the left in its tactics.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/267779/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  531. Ace is so far off the deep end. I stopped reading him years ago for that reason, just as I never started reading Breitbart.com.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  532. Don’t emulate the left. Hold them to their own professed rules, a la Alinsky.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  533. I see the whole thing differently, be should have never fired general Lynn, for reasins unspecified, we have yet to hear his story and unthinking 35 years of service entitle him to that much.

    The real question is why are the architects of the various surrenders to our enemies not under legal investitugation. That would be Rhodesia and Brendan and Mcdonough? Red queens charge sheet alone would be a supplement to Blackstone

    narciso (d1f714)

  534. @ DRJ: That’s an interesting link. I don’t blame Cruz for keeping this company on this occasion, but I do recommend that he switch to this shampoo.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  535. That clearly doesn’t work they (redact) all over legal ethics and they’ve been doing it for nearly 40 years.

    narciso (d1f714)

  536. John Kerry’s island slander againstAmerica coauthored with the Christi institute with lyrics by Maxine waters us getting a full rollout next. Month on fx

    narciso (d1f714)

  537. So Scott walker, to. Delay rick Perry, all are walking wounded because the left succeeded either totally driving then from office or chrtauling there future ambitions

    narciso (d1f714)

  538. How is an assasintation hit list, like the dewey canyon vets in winter soldier, not a bigger story.

    narciso (d1f714)

  539. In fact thats probably where he got the idea from:
    http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fedora3b

    narciso (d1f714)

  540. Perry wasn’t driven from office, but left on his own two feet after handing the keys to Greg Abbott, and he’s now “Mister Secretary Perry,” which ain’t bad for a guy who got a D in a course called “Meat” at Texas A&M. 😉

    Beldar (fa637a)

  541. Walker seems fine too.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  542. So special in selected reading are those lawyers. I’m gonna puke.

    mg (31009b)

  543. (Little known fact: All shampoo is “flea & tick shampoo.” It’s the water that kills them, so you just need a surfactant. Dawn dishwashing soap works perfectly.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  544. I did not know that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  545. Proving that, at least at my house, it was indeed a little known fact.

    DRJ (15874d)

  546. “Emulating the left’s tactics” is how Trump has redefined conservatism. Some will think it’s great and some won’t, but it is the new conservatism.

    DRJ (15874d)

  547. I saw “Julius Caesar” done by the actors from the Royal Shakespeare Company, including the then-not-so-well-known Patrick Stewart — although not performing as such, and not in Stratford-on-Avon, but in the West End — in the summer of 1981. I recognized him as having played Sejanus in the BBC’s production of “I, Claudius” from a few years earlier, but this was long before ST:TNG. The whole cast was marvellous, but I think he played Brutus. I don’t recall who played Caesar, but I’m pretty sure I would’ve noticed if he had been either black-skinned or orange-haired.

    It’s a great play, deliciously ambiguous, but like all Shakespeare, you have to pay attention, and you might benefit from an annotated script with notes explaining some of the anachronisms. Shakespeare isn’t for the lazy, and I wonder how many who’re attending the current production in Central Park even pay attention to anything but the murder scene.

    I can’t quite imagine Trump declaiming:

    Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause
    Will he be satisfied.

    They are famous last words, though, and while I can’t imagine him using them, I can imagine in him engaging in that point of view. I definitely can’t imagine him saying, “What touches us ourself shall be last served.” But then, Julius Caesar wasn’t quite so caught up in “the Caesar Brand,” and while he referred to himself (as written by Shakespeare, anyway) with the royal “we,” at least he didn’t refer to himself constantly in the third person.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  548. Actually, I guess in the death scene, Caesar does refer to himself a lot in the third person.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  549. I do also think that Jim Comey has a lean and hungry look.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  550. Actually, I guess in the death scene, Caesar does refer to himself a lot in the third person.

    I’m pretty sure the line is “Et tu, Brute. Then fall, Caesar!”

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  551. Newt Gingrich, who voted for articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton which included the charge (which I agreed with at the time, and still agree with):

    In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

    (emphasis added)

    now says it is impossible for a president to obstruct justice (“…by the way, technically, the President of the United States cannot obstruct justice.”)

    He went on to offer this very dubious analogy:

    Somebody said the other day, I thought this was a very good test. If John F. Kennedy had fired J. Edgar Hoover over investigating and wiretapping Martin Luther King Jr., would people have thought it was obstruction?

    It was RFK, not Hoover, who authorized the wire-tapping of King, due to his friendship with a former communist, and it was surely done unlawfully and without reference to any reasonable suspicion that would have passed Fourth Amendment muster. And King wasn’t one of the president’s closest allies (like Flynn), but the most vexing critic of the administration. Gotta give him props, though, for drawing the race-card to an inside straight…

    I’m curious whether anyone else will buy into Gingrich’s ludicrous (and obviously hypocritical) assertion.

    Nixon famously took the next logical step and claimed “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal,” going on to say that the president can’t “run amok” because has to face the electorate, get appropriations from congress, etc. But Nixon’s theory would also allow the president to cancel elections, or dismiss congress, etc, so it seems like a rather dangerous road to start down…

    Dave (711345)

  552. Okay. Now I’ve got myself worked up, and it is a weekend. I’m watching the 1953 film version of Julius Caesar, starring an astonishingly fit, bare-chested Marlon Brando, James Mason as Brutus, and John Gielgud as Cassius. As I watch it, I can’t help mentally interposing both Trump and Obama onto the face of the actor playing Caesar (Louis Calhern), considering all the lines as if they read “Trump” or “Obama” in place of “Caesar.” And it’s a hoot, very entertaining.

    Offhand, I can likewise imagine watching versions of the Scottish Play, “Hamlet,” “King Lear,” “Henry V,” “Richard III,” and maybe even “Othello,” all adapted with characters resembling Obama, Trump, and the inner circles of both. Probably three-quarters of Shakespeare can be plausibly adapted into some kind of commentary on modern American politics.

    And this was true, too, in Lincoln’s day! Booth, an actor of renown, made references to “Julius Caesar” and thought he’d be perceived, like Brutus, as the “noblest Roman of them all”; there’s a biography of Booth titled “American Brutus: John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln Conspiracies.”

    The Alley Theater in Houston produced a version of the Scottish Play some years ago in which all the characters wore modern paramilitary gear — matte black, body armor — and carried M-16s instead of swords. It worked brilliantly.

    I suspect if I were to attend the production currently going on in Central Park, it’s the audience I would hate, not the actors so much. The extent to which modern American POTUSes are anti-democratic usurpers of authority is a genuinely important topic of debate, but whether that’s what’s drawing 1% or 10% or 50% of the current audiences, I really don’t know.

    I don’t think one can make the same observations with nearly the same force about Kathy Griffin. The people who reacted to that in a genuinely thoughtful way, or who could be predicted to do so, is surely less than 0.00001% of her intended target audience. It’s all political speech, all protected from government punishment, under the First Amendment, of course, but what she did pegged my personal meter for tastelessness, and the Central Park play doesn’t do that, for me anyway.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  553. Maybe they’re just trying to imply that the explanation for Trump’s erratic behavior is epilepsy.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  554. (Which would be heartless exploitation. Why are Lefties so hostile to epileptics? Someone point this out to Sean Hannity ….)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  555. Michelle Carter should rush the stage and try to stop the assassination of Julius Caesar.

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  556. Marry, before he fell down, when he perceived the common herd was glad he refused the crown, he plucked me ope his doublet and offered them his throat to cut. An I had been a man of any occupation, if I would not have taken him at a word, I would I might go to hell among the rogues. And so he fell. When he came to himself again, he said, if he had done or said anything amiss, he desired their worships to think it was his infirmity. Three or four wenches where I stood cried, “Alas, good soul!” and forgave him with all their hearts. But there’s no heed to be taken of them. If Caesar had stabbed their mothers they would have done no less.

    Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 2

    I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.

    — Donald J. Trump, campaigning in Iowa on January 23, 2016

    Beldar (fa637a)

  557. @576 Beldar

    Kathy Griffin wasn’t arrested by government agents but she was impeached by CNN.

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  558. Roy Cohn = Nicomedes IV of Bethynia?

    I found a weird rabbit hole. Some site says that QEII has a direct bloodline back to Caesar but it looks pretty Sovereign Citizen crazy.

    Pinandpuller (f7e804)

  559. Yeah, Shakespeare has Caesar speaking of himself in the third person pretty much constantly.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  560. If republicans want to stay in power,[lmao] they need Hillary in the news. These republican leaders in congress seem to be the lamest bunch of lackeys this side of the Mississippi.

    mg (31009b)

  561. I forgot they be lawyers.
    What an occupation, kinda like a weatherman, nothing matters but the paycheck.

    mg (31009b)

  562. Caesar did not suffer from epilepsy. His career belies that. Consul, Pontifex Maximus, proconsul, commander of legions, long before the triumvirate and dictatorship. Not things easily achievable for someone with epilepsy even of he is a Julius, Rome’s highest gens. Not to mention the superstition that epilepsy was because the sufferer had displeased Apollo. That alone would have been a career killer in superstitious Rome.

    He most likely suffered from mini-strokes, transient ischemic attacks, in his later years. He was fifty-six when he was assassinated, and he had lived a life of both sybaritic dissipation and military hardship, and there are any other number of things that cause them pretty much the same as for heart attacks.

    nk (dbc370)

  563. As for Caesar referring to himself in the third person, nobody (Sorry, Mr. Shakespeare) does it better than Gosciny and Uderzo in the Asterix comics.

    In one, two Romans are part of a group discussing a project in Gaul:

    First Roman (whispers): Who is he talking about?
    Second Roman (whispers): Himself. He always refers to himself in the third person.
    First Roman (out loud): He is amazing!
    (Caesar hears that.)
    Caesar: Who?
    First Roman: You, sir.
    Caesar: Ah, him.

    nk (dbc370)

  564. Beldar, I’m glad you started the Caesar discussion, and that is fascinating, nk.

    DRJ (15874d)

  565. As for Shakepeare in modern settings, I give five stars (and so does everybody else) to Richard III with Ian McKellen, set in the later 1930s. The jazz version of the poem “Come Live With Me And Be My Love” by Christopher Marlowe, as the background for Richard’s soliloquy at the opening of the movie, by itself is worth the price of admission.

    nk (dbc370)

  566. Oh! Yes, nk, that’s another modern adaptation that totally works! McKellen lets it all hang out. And … apparently the real one had a hump, even if Caesar wasn’t epileptic — another fascinating comment!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  567. Deborah Kerr was also hot — “1950s-hot,” but it translates to this era too — in a brief role as Portia in the 1953 film. It was produced by John Houseman — “Prof. Kingsfield” from “The Paper Chase” movie and TV series. I heard him speak at Townes Hall, in the UT Law auditorium and sponsored by the UT Law Student Association, even though Houseman, as he laughingly insisted at the beginning of his talk, only played a lawyer. He was among the most comprehensively charmingly, thoroughly entertaining people I’ve ever met. I recall that he told wonderfully vivid stories about working with Orson Welles in WPA productions of the Mercury Theater on the Air. Houseman and Brando both got Oscar nominations for this film, and I liked it quite a bit.

    It’s a play about tyrants, of course. But it’s also about crowds, and populism, and how to turn a crowd into a mob. Brutus’ speech and Antony’s speech, back to back, are two of the most deft jobs of crowd manipulation that anyone could ever imagine — every bit as good (and insincere) as Obama’s “no black America, no white America” speech at Kerry’s convention in 2004. These are genuinely timeless topics, whether you’re discussing a leader who punishes people for stripping decorative scarves from his statues or a leader who poses in front of a fake POTUS seal reading “Vero Possumus.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  568. (By “met,” I mean I hung around to shake Houseman’s hand. This was in, oh, about 1978.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  569. Rome’s foremost patrician gens descended from Aeneas and Aphrodite according to Virgil*, consul, Pontifex Maximus, proconsul, commander of legions; if that is not as far as you can get from Donald John Trump’s background, I don’t know what is. I’ll concede the similarities that he led the Populares against the Optimates and his eyebrow-raising relationship with the King of Bithynia**, but that’s as far as it goes.

    *Virgil might have made that up.
    **NTTAWWT

    nk (dbc370)

  570. Vigil might have been the Jeff zeleny of his time, or pricopiys the first time around, Caesar was the nephew of Marius the winner from the first civil war, thigh occurred against the backdrop of an insurgency led by mithridates of pontus, now in modern turkey. That province was still proving troublesome some 40 years later.

    Richard the third was defamed the fake news of tutor propagandists like Thomas Morton, who Shakespeare relied on for his tale.

    narciso (d1f714)

  571. Gergg Henry is always playing the heavy, he played the trump standing on last season of scandal, you know who you are supposed to hate

    narciso (d1f714)

  572. Great comment:

    It’s a play about tyrants, of course. But it’s also about crowds, and populism, and how to turn a crowd into a mob. Brutus’ speech and Antony’s speech, back to back, are two of the most deft jobs of crowd manipulation that anyone could ever imagine — every bit as good (and insincere) as Obama’s “no black America, no white America” speech at Kerry’s convention in 2004. These are genuinely timeless topics, whether you’re discussing a leader who punishes people for stripping decorative scarves from his statues or a leader who poses in front of a fake POTUS seal reading “Vero Possumus.”

    Beldar (fa637a) — 6/17/2017 @ 5:29 am

    DRJ (15874d)

  573. Awan brothers own us.

    mg (31009b)

  574. They’ve been running roughshod over gopers like this fellow, who my friend represented on appeal, he was testifying in an unrelated hearing:
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ed-reinecke-distinguished-california-passes-away-at-92-by-jack-cox

    narciso (d1f714)

  575. Vero possumus? Real possum?

    nk (dbc370)

  576. Well there’s a surfeit if material here

    https://audioboom.com/channel/johnbatchelor

    narciso (d1f714)

  577. Therecwas never a play about the gracchi that I can

    narciso (d1f714)

  578. I think Mueller will conclude that thousands of building code violations are good enough to recommend indictment.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  579. May I also add that Game Theory dictates the best strategy is tit-for-tat ergo emulating the Left is not all that crazy.

    Maybe, just maybe, if the next move is positive by the Left we would then respond in kind.

    Doubt it. Been one lefty cluster F since the 1960s — uninterrupted may I add.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  580. Grant and Truman Both Fired Prosecutors so I guess there’s precedence for the “unthinkable.”

    crazy (d3b449)

  581. The left IS that crazy. Nothing they do is positive. We should respond by initiating thousands of law suits among the democrats. We should begin to leak accusations of our own. We eed to wage lawfare too.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  582. Actual
    Lay there is a method to their madness, from the procurators like chisholm the
    Mobs at Berkeley and even Missouri, to sicarios like the one in Alexandria their goals the same and it has been for 40 years

    narciso (d1f714)

  583. If anyone had told me there would be bat-wielding sexually-confused nitwits patrolling campuses in 2017…..well…..

    How in heck is this NOT a parody photo? It looks like a promo for an Pride fantasy avenger TV show.

    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/06/evergreen-bats-twitter-640×480.jpg

    harkin (536957)

  584. Hoagie,

    Most Democrats are moving away from Christianity or aren’t religious at all. Do we really want to follow their lead?

    DRJ (15874d)

  585. Best line I heard about the stage rush last night: “Brutus Interruptus.

    And have to agree with those who say it’s not the right move. The Trump in the play should not be stopped because right-wing snowflakes rush the stage, but because it’s the right thing to do. Freedom of speech and all that.

    It’s OK to pressure funders and advertisers but not the people on the stage, way too Berkeley for me.

    harkin (536957)

  586. Maybe we should blame the ratification of the Twelfth Ammendment for the life or death political resistance of the left without which the election’s runnerup would be Veep. What an interesting situation that would be. Politically it would certainly be better than endless criminal innuendo and investigation.

    crazy (d3b449)

  587. oh yeah, and waiting for Shakespeare In The Park to tackle Macbeth where we get to see Hillary attempting to wash away the blood of Benghazi (or even Bernie).

    harkin (536957)

  588. Actually the point is about brutes and Cassius why stage a show with those particular markers its about incitment not enlughtenmemt, like the recently closed building the wall.

    narciso (d1f714)

  589. 607, and Beldar, it’s a good thing Rick Perry didn’t get an A+ in “Meat”, at everwhere else but A&M, such a grade would have earned him a busy June of gran marshaling.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  590. Cosby got off, in the judicial sense.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  591. Solid advice from Ishmael Jones: pull their clearances. Too many former officials maintaining access to national security information for no meaningful reason.

    crazy (d3b449)

  592. Cosby got off, in the judicial sense.”

    He got off in the Oscar Wilde V2.0 sense.

    harkin (873170)

  593. Beldar; “The extent to which modern American POTUSes are anti-democratic usurpers of authority is a genuinely important topic of debate”

    The issue is less Presidents who are usurpers of authority (although Obama certainly was, and Trump seems inclined to use what Obama left lying around the oval office), but the entire Government – Federal, State, AND Local – that is an assumer of authority that probably should’t exist. It isn’t usurped so much as conjured out of (very) thin air. Where, for example, do swine like the Mayor of Philadelphia get the idea that they have the moral authority to pressure the populace to stop drinking soda? Never mind whether the populace would be better if they stopped; that’s another issue. What the fuck business is it of a city government. Especially a city government that, on its own showing, can’t keep the roads in decent repair?

    Governments are good at brute force and bean counting. They are horribly bad at anything requiring subtlety, nuance, tact, or taste. Governments should be limited to simple, fairly straightforward enterprises like building roads, delivering the mail, or killing barbarians. They should keep the hell out of nutrition, medicine, and child rearing.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  594. Adding to what has already been a truly bizarre day, even by Washington D.C. standards, NBC is now reporting that even Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, has been forced to ‘lawyer up,’ as the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference progresses.

    Neo (d1c681)

  595. After the death of ‘Scoop’ Jackson, I never thought I would see a single Democrat, let alone a large number of Democrats, acting like John Birchers ever again … but I was wrong.

    Neo (d1c681)

  596. Government is dangerous for many reasons, but primarily because it has so much power and that tempts everyone in government to abuse it. This is nothing new. It was the Founders greatest concern, and it’s why the Constitution tries to protect us from our own government.

    DRJ (15874d)

  597. Too many former officials maintaining access to national security information for no meaningful reason.

    A clearance doesn’t give you access, just allows access if and when the government needs you to see something classified. Sometimes people have a clearance because they work at a facility that holds classified info, but they never see anything classified.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  598. DRJ; I agree wholeheartedly. The problem with a government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want isn’t that it can take everything you have. It’s that it’s so goddamned big and clumsy that it’s likely to step on you like a bug without noticing or meaning to.

    Neo; The Progressive Left has acted like the thuggish far right of a long time. They only completely subsumed the Democrat Party in the 1970’s, and until very recently they were far better at covering it up and pretending that it wasn’t typical. One of the effects of their losing control of the Media is that more is getting out. Also, since they started the strata of what I call “Hobby Protesters” in the 1980’s (as the original 1960’s radicals started to die off from exhaustion) they have lost a good deal of control and discipline. The Hobby Protesters are going to protest SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, every goddamned weekend (more or less) and there are too many of them to ignore they want the perpetual idiots who camp outside the White House get ignored.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  599. Kevin M;

    What you said about classification is true, to a degree. History is full of high powered imbeciles who assumed that because they had rank they had clearance, and low powered persons too afraid to tell the high rankers to fuck off. It’s constant problem and every once in a while, when we get a high commander who has the guts, there will be a purge of brass who have gone where they shouldn’t go and seen what they shouldn’t have access to.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  600. Kevin M. @622. You’re right. Here’s his point:

    Nearly all intelligence officials who are fired, retired, pushed out, or resign from the intelligence agencies keep their security clearances.

    Security clearances are a deep state guild or union card allowing the holders to swan about intelligence facilities, chatting, gossiping, and gathering intelligence that they can leak to journalists.


    President Trump knows how to fire people, but he’s never had the experience of firing people who walk back in the door the next day.

    The solution is to cancel these security clearances. It is an administrative task which is easy to do.

    People who don’t work at intelligence agencies shouldn’t have clearances. It’s not a free speech issue. Leakers aren’t protected by the First Amendment.

    The origin of the policy allowing these people to keep their clearances is that it is often necessary to bring back former employees who have valuable skills and specialties. But most of these guys got to their high rank by outsitting their competition. They don’t speak foreign languages or hold other essential skills.

    These aren’t retired firemen who drop by the firehouse to see their friends. Some former intel officials are using their security clearances for malicious and self-interested purposes.

    The pseudonymous former CIA officer is offering an explanation for why so many gossipy former officials seem to know so much and one way to stop it quickly and easily.

    crazy (d3b449)

  601. @615- Cosby got off, in the judicial sense.

    Hey! Hey! Hey!

    “…when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” –Donald Trump, 2005 Access Hollywood tape

    ____

    Today’s Beldar The Bitter “Watergate, Watergate, Watergate” Words Of Wonder:

    “The political lesson of Watergate is this: Never again must America allow an arrogant, elite guard of political adolescents to by-pass the regular party organization and dictate the terms of a national election.” – Gerald Ford

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  602. Could be crazy. Or it could be entirely made up.

    narciso (d1f714)

  603. Good point, narciso. Who can tell when a former spook speaks. Either way his suggestion is an easy way to start cleaning up the bureaucrat inertia and rot that permeates the government. Trump would rather stir things up on twitter, but simple steps like the Jones proposal or calling an NSC meeting in front of the cameras and tasking the national security team to clean up the gossip and reinvigorate internal controls would be far more effective. Being president gets more things done than starting twitter wars.

    crazy (d3b449)

  604. @627 DCSCA (both quotes)

    “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” – Karl Marx

    Dave (711345)

  605. Isn’t John Miller just Trump in the third person?

    Was Beldar the Bitter Gandalf the Gray’s younger brother?

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  606. Say “friend” and get lost.

    The Elves

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  607. People must buy into Trump in Three Persons when they go to the Central Park Passion Play and watch his body and blood transsubstantiate.

    His last supper was McDonald’s. Whosoever I dip this fry in ketchup with has leaked to The New York Times. Go quickly and walk home from a bar in Georgetown at 2 AM.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  608. You see Awan, you’ve seen Amal.

    Pinandpuller (150358)

  609. Another but of mystery? What happened to huma’s kin in michigam who had some legal shenanigans

    narciso (d1f714)

  610. Re Cosby: He’s still got his presumption of innocence, and the prosecution took its best shot. Not it’s “perfect, we get everything” shot, which would have been if the trial judge permitted a long list of “prior act” witnesses, which would have turned a prosecution into a persecution IMHO. Given the defendant’s age, the long passage of time since the alleged crime, and the incredibly subjective nature of the proof of this rather subjective criminal offense, turning on the consent of someone so many years ago in circumstances that are highly disputed, without any corroborative testimony regarding this alleged sexual assault, it would be a travesty of justice and a waste of time to re-try the man.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  611. Turns out Hodgkinson had a hit list in his pocket of conservatives (Freedom Caucus) when he bushwacked the GOP batting practice. Stone cold premeditated political murder! Straight up.

    Which is just about the most egregious crime imaginable in an elected representative government.

    ropelight (f923af)

  612. Ropelight, not only is it premeditated stone cold attempted murder, but it’s politically misguided in that the HFC still had utility as poison pill element for some agenda items. Hodgepodge could have been a useful dupe for hard Trump had they got to him later.

    urbanleftbehind (5bf0fc)

  613. @630 LOL

    “If you think this country’s bad off now, just wait till I get through with it!” – Groucho Marx [as Rufus T. Firefly] ‘Duck Soup’ 1933

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  614. “He’s still got his presumption of innocence, and the prosecution took its best shot. Not it’s “perfect, we get everything” shot, which would have been if the trial judge permitted a long list of “prior act” witnesses.”

    – Beldar

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t FRE 413 expressly allow such witnesses in the context of sexual assaults? I had the same question watching “The Keepers” recently – why are prosecutors so reluctant to utilize these special rules in the context of sexual assault prosecutions?

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  615. 640 — yes, but Rule 403 still exists and would limit the application of 413.

    Rule 403 is, by its own words, applicable to otherwise relevant evidence the probative value of which would be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

    Passage of time is a key factor in casting doubt on “probative value”. While a prosecutor might get to use past conduct within a certain number of years, trying to use conduct from many many years earlier would likely be more difficult in terms of overcoming 403.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  616. Frequency of prior allegations weighs into 403 as well, in the context of 413. Certainly, in a case like Cosby’s, at least a handful of the dozens of complaints against the man would survive the “passage of time” considerations (if any) that 403 might impose. A balance would have to be struck – not all of the “other acts,” but some of them.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  617. @ Leviticus (#640): Great question! It prompted me to do some googling to refresh and confirm some impressions I had, for which impetus I thank you!

    First: Ditto everything swc just wrote (#641); I associate myself with his remarks, as they say.

    Consistent with them, I’d add that deciding what’s “prejudicial” and what’s “undue prejudice,” with all the prescribed balancing tests, is treated by appellate courts as something that’s within the broad discretion of the trial judge who’s seen the witnesses and heard the evidence live. Appellate courts are particularly deferential to trial judges on such rulings, requiring not just a showing that the trial judge might have gotten the wrong result, but that he went further and “abused his discretion,” e.g., by applying a completely improper legal standard. This is true as a general rule in both civil and criminal cases, state and federal, across the United States — which is all as it should be. All that is to say, what this judge found “unduly prejudicial” in this particular trial may vary wildly from a what another judge, or even this same judge, may have done on another day in a superficially similar case. Again, that is confusing to laymen sometimes and makes the system less predictable, but that’s all as it should be, and you’ve got to trust your trial judges to make good individual decisions without second-guessing them too hard.

    Cosby’s being prosecuted in the Pennsylvania state-court system, though, since there’s no federal crime involved. So it’s not the Federal Rules of Evidence but the PA rules which apply. I haven’t looked at the relevant PA rules, but they well might be different from the federal rules: Although state evidentiary rules usually parallel, and sometimes explicitly track the Federal Rules of Evidence, sometimes they definitely, intentionally do not, particularly on this kind of subject.

    In particular, Fed. R. Evid. 413, enacted by Congress in 1994, is an example of something you find in the Federal Rules that many states are refusing to go along with. There is no counterpart to Fed. R. Evid. 413 at all in the Texas Rules of Evidence, for example — meaning that the admissibility of evidence about prior bad acts in sexual assault cases is determined on the same rules for prior bad acts that would be used in any other trial. And while not always impossible to lay an adequate predicate to get them into evidence, in general the rules of evidence are skeptical of prior bad acts as being particularly likely to create unfair prejudice that outweighs their probative value, unless you can show something like a particular modus operandi in the bad acts, whose details are peculiar enough to be especially meaningful in considering the currently alleged bad act.

    And Fed. R. Evid. 413 in particular is, and has always been, controversial. I agree with this, from the synopsis of a recent law journal article:

    Enacted by Congress in 1995 despite the objections of the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, and many legal scholars, and in contravention of the established process for promulgating rules of procedure and evidence set out in the Rules Enabling Act, these rules carve an exception out of the rule against the use of propensity evidence where the acts are sexual in nature. In the ten years that the rules have been in effect, the issue that has emerged is the proper scope of trial court discretion to exclude similar acts evidence in sexual assault cases under the general supervisory authority of Rule 403. The issue invites a broader consideration of which branch of government ought to have primacy in the area of evidence rulemaking.

    Exactly! And that’s the nub of it: This isn’t a rule that the courts concluded would help them reach more just and accurate results in a search for the truth. This is a rule propounded by SJWs who want to put their thumbs, permanently and in every sexual assault case, on the scales of justice and on the side of the alleged victim, to the detriment of the defendant.

    This rule came from Congress because that’s where the SJWs get the most traction. See also, e.g., the ridiculous Federal Violence Against Women Act and a ton of other federal criminal law that’s been custom-crafted to favor particular interest groups at the expense of uniform, blind justice under the Rule of Law.

    This kind of special interest legislation is an inappropriate use of the legislative function, an over-reach — meddling for political purposes. Making special rules of evidence just for the benefit of the victim-group-of-the-month is an absolutely atrocious idea, right up there with having special laws for “hate crimes.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  618. It’s also an assault on federalism, part of the increasing and liberty-depriving federalization of functions that are outside the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution, but that are reserved to the states and have historically, wisely, been prosecuted by them according to the choices and priorities of each in our laboratory of democracy.

    Ted Cruz would agree with that sentence, and I’ve heard him and a few other GOP politicians so argue. I wish more Republicans would campaign on this sort of thing, though. This is so far off Trump’s radar screens and over his head that there will be no help or support from him, though.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  619. It’s more picking of winners and losers, more statism.

    I really don’t like Fed. R. Evid. 413 or anything about it, in fact, and that’s speaking as not just a lawyer, but as the father of two young adult sons and two young adult daughters, all of whom are still dating and therefore at continuing risk of being caught in someone else’s confusion and madness. At least neither of my sons are still on a college campus, where due process is a joke.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  620. Its part of the weaponinizing of memes against institutions, narrative warfare for the state to be uber alles every institution must be atomized

    narciso (d1f714)

  621. @639

    Dave (711345)

  622. Re #637: Stone-cold attempted murder, thankfully, as no victim has yet died and hopefully none will. It’s a crime that won’t be prosecuted because the shooter was killed, but if he had survived to be prosecuted, and if in fact a member of Congress had been killed, it would have been one of the comparatively rare federal capital crimes punishable in the federal court system by death.

    I mention that because it’s the exception to prove the rule regarding my comments above about improper federalization of the criminal law, particularly with respect to violent crimes. Although Virginia does, many states don’t have capital punishment laws. It’s appropriate for federal law to provide a federal punishment that may be more severe than state law permits, when and if there are important federal interests implicated — and the deliberate and premeditated murder of the POTUS or VPOTUS, or a member of the Congress, the Cabinet, or United States Supreme Court, definitely implicates important federal interests.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  623. “If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They love anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be teriffic.” – Donald Trump, ‘People’ Magazine, 1998

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  624. Lol #650 … and yet still a far better choice than HRC or Obola.

    Blah (44eaa0)

  625. @649

    Just “locker-room talk”

    Dave (711345)

  626. The NM Rules of Evidence parallel the FRE pretty much precisely, although I realize that’s not the case in many states. I wonder if that’s the case in CA, and (if so) what Patterico thinks of 413 (or its equivalent).

    I represent victims of childhood sexual abuse, on the civil side. So I think it’s a good rule. Let the jury decide, as they say.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  627. I think the most relevant piece of evidence, when consent is the pivotal question, is the woman’s sexual history. The jury should be allowed to hear whether the accuser is a decent Christian lady who only has relations with her husband, or some round-heeled Jezebel who hops into bed with anything in pants. And in the later instance, that should also be grounds to dismiss the indictment. There is no reason for precious criminal justice system resources to be wasted in delusional attempt to protect the virtue of women who don’t have any. It’s like calling the fire department to go to a house that burned down years ago. At most, these women should have a civil cause of action under quantum meruit for whatever the going rate is in the neighborhood.

    nk (dbc370)

  628. #654 We used to know what rape was, now it is just an ex-post opinion of his performance and how “she” feels about it. Much like how a women “feels” about her fetus can either make it a life or not. Quantum physics in action! But hey, we don’t even know what a man or woman is nowadays and that is subject to feelings also.

    RUSSIA!!!!!

    Blah (44eaa0)

  629. I represent victims of childhood sexual abuse, on the civil side.

    Dennis Hastert type cases? In addition to the blackmail laws, better check the misprision and compounding a felony laws, too, if the criminal statute of limitations has been extended along with the civil one.

    nk (dbc370)

  630. 480. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/16/2017 @ 4:12 pm

    another unclosed tag for my tally. I’ve actually done that dozens and dozens of times, here and anywhere else I regularly comment that permits HTML.

    Althouse…

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/

    …permits HTML, but it doesn’t permit unclosed tags. The message won’t be sent if there are any unclosed tages, and you get it back with a chance to edit it.

    It also does not permits blockquote, and I think strike or href.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  631. 495. nk (dbc370) — 6/16/2017 @ 5:16 pm

    One client, the nicest guy you could ever meet and bright and educated too, called as an adverse witness in the plaintiff’s case in chief, did not understand the simple advice, “Just listen to the question carefully and answer it as fairly as you can. Then wait for the next one. Do not explain. Do not justify.” He and the plaintiff’s attorney stretched what should have been two hours of testimony to almost two days. I felt sorry for the judge.

    Didn’t he swear to tell the whole truth? It’s nt his fault the plaintiff’s attorney didn’t want him to, and fought him.

    He was under oath.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  632. nk – So if the rape victim isn’t a

    decent Christian lady who only has relations with her husband,

    then she’s a slut who has no cause of action? Got it.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  633. The emphasis is on decent lady who only has relations with her husband. She can be of any religion or none. Christian is for extra credit.

    nk (dbc370)

  634. Is there an objective legal standard for ‘decent’ lady? Or is the test ‘only has relations with her husband’?

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  635. The test is that she is a virgin on her wedding night and faithful to her husband until death do them part. So it would apply to decent unmarried women and innocent young girls, too.

    nk (dbc370)

  636. I am not entirely rigid on this. I take cognizance of the fact that women are by nature morally weak and slaves to their hormones, and men have a responsibility to be the strong ones. I would consider making the man pay for the abortion if a pregnancy resulted.

    nk (dbc370)

  637. “Dennis Hastert type cases?”

    – nk

    Raped by a priest type cases. And we’ve never represented anyone who contacted his or her abuser, for many or anything else.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  638. Trump’s attorney now says Trump is not being investigated, despite his tweet last week saying “I am being investigated”…

    Question:

    It is well known that Donald Trump knows more about [insert subject] than anybody.

    After all, Donald Trump said so, and he never lies.

    So why doesn’t he represent himself instead of relying on attorneys who don’t understand the law as well as he does, and whose words aren’t nearly as good as his?

    Dave (711345)

  639. I did not seriously think you did, Leviticus.

    nk (dbc370)

  640. Beldar @55 in the experts on Islam thread.

    I saw that interview too. I agree 100% it was a disaster, although Chris Wallace acted like it wasn’t. I didn’t know Jay Sekulow was such a bad advocate. Sekulow spent a lot of time arguing over a nonsense point.

    Trump should have watched it live and called the studio, and asked to be put on the air, it was that bad. He almost couldn’t have said anything worse.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  641. Sammy – it’s pretty clear to me from the lawyers he has engaged, that POTUS isn’t prepared to mount a competent legal defense or even take advice. For someone like Mueller and the team he is assembling, POTUS will be like fish in a barrel.

    Spartacvs (2db708)

  642. 653. nk (dbc370) — 6/17/2017 @ 9:10 pm

    I think the most relevant piece of evidence, when consent is the pivotal question, is the woman’s sexual history.

    That is something that can, in some cases 95% or 98%, rule it out, but it can’t rule it in.

    In the Cosby case, I think everyone accepted the idea that, all other things being equal, consent was a possibility, especially since she’d known him for some time. What damaged that possibility was Cosby’s admission that he’d given her 3 pills. He said they were Benadryl. She said he had told her they were herbal pills, and that the effect was like nothing she knew. It sort of paralyzed her and left her drifting in and out of consciousness. She said she stayed in contact with Bill Cosby because she wanted to find out what those pills were, but, however much he tried to make it up to her, he would never tell her what they pills were. And all she knew was that they were blue. The prosecution never identified a candidate for what the pills might have been. I think that was a problem.

    There was also his admission of prior acts decades before plus the fact of other accusations. The judge allowed one example, from 1996, eight years earlier, to be brought into evidence.

    It’s quite clear that Andrea Constand lied when she initially said:

    1) That it was the first time she had been alone with Bill Cosby in his home.

    2) That it was the last time she had been in more than minimal communication with him.

    3) That it took place on a date in March 2004 after a dinner in a restaurant.

    She probably did that to stengthen the case for the prosecution or increase the possibility it would be prosecuted. She picked the date in March because there was some record they were together. I think she says now that was after the assault.

    She now says it was the third time she was alone in his house when he gave her the pills and she had declined intercourse the first two times, but this day she had told him she was leaving the area soon (which meant it was maybe his last chance.) You could say Cosby did this because he knew he would never have another chance – and that he didn’t do it before because he knew he could this only one time with each woman. Now she told him she was going away so it was anyway his only chance.

    Bill Cosby did not testify but he testified earlier in the civil court case before it was settled (under the assumption that he could not claim the 5th amendment because there was no chance for prosecution)

    In that testimony, he seems to have admitted everythig except what would make him criminally, and maybe civilly, liable. If he’d denied having any kind of intercourse with her, or denied giving her any pills, the denial would have been more plausible.

    There were 3 counts and the jury was deadlocked.

    One count was penetration after administering an intoxicant without the subject’s knowledge. Well, it wasn’t without her knowledge. But maybe it was without knowledge of what it was. The jury asked for clarification on this point and the judge wouldn’t give it. The prosecution had actually put on a witness who tried to say that all the effects that Andrea Constand claimed could be produced by Benadryl!

    Another count was penetration while unconscious. But she wasn’t exactly unconscious.

    And the remaining count was penetration without consent. It’s hard to be guilty of that without being guilty of one of the other two. And do we know there was penetration?

    The defense wanted to put on a witness (a Temple employee) whom they said would say that Andrea Constand had told her she had made up the story of the assault, but the judge would not allow it. The NYT story does not say anything further about that. There must be stories about it aht would allow us to assess its credibility.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  643. @ Leviticus (#652): Do you really think there should be special, different, easier rules of evidence for the prosecution depending on who the victim is? I agree with the idea of “Let the jury decide” when it comes to facts. But “let the jury decide” is crazy talk if we’re instead talking about rules of evidence or procedure — a direct invitation to lawlessness, in fact. If that’s the rule, why have a judge at all?

    Are there any other interest groups for whom you’d carve out special rules of evidence?

    In many states, sexual assault victims also get special rules of procedure, e.g., the wave of statutes extending the statutes of limitations (and/or discovery rule) in situations in which all other tort claims would be extinguished by operation of law. I object to those for the same reason.

    One of the things I dislike most about this rule in particular is its intellectual dishonesty. Why pass a rule which says, only for one class of offense and one type of alleged victim, “the court may admit evidence” of a certain type, without providing any new standards for judging how to decide whether a particular piece of evidence “may” or “ought not” be admitted? What this amounts to, basically, is Congress telling trial judges: “We want you to offer unequal justice in these particular kinds of cases, but we don’t want to be seen to say that, so we’re just going to remind you that you ‘may’ do this, even though in appropriate (but highly limited) circumstances that was already the rule for this and every other kind of case. We just want to remind you that, umm, we think justice for this sort of victim ought to be kind of “extra equal,” if you know what I mean (and I’m sure you do).” It’s gutless.

    I believe in that blindfold on the traditional images of Lady Justice with her sword. It’s really an important part of what she’s doing.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  644. (Keeping track of single and double quote marks is as hard as closing tags, but it doesn’t create eleven column inches of hyperlinked text, at least.)

    @ Leviticus: I’m making an unfair assumption. If you think Fed. R. Evid. 413 is a “good rule” and you’re speaking in your capacity as a lawyer who regularly advocates for victims of sexual assault, then you’re be an advocate for your client base. Maybe that’s all you meant.

    But as a private citizen, apart from your usual clients’ interests, and purely in your capacity as an individual who sees and understands the bigger picture: Do you think it’s good in general to write special rules of evidence and procedure for particular classes of offenses and victims?

    (I hope it goes without saying, but on the internet it’s nevertheless worth saying often, that even if we profoundly disagree on this, it’s a respectful disagreement!)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  645. The crux of the Cosby case:

    http://www.macleans.ca/society/bill-cosbys-trial-calls-experts-on-pink-and-blue-pills/

    The first segment read to the court dealt with the Jan. 16, 2005 telephone call Gianna Constand, mother to Andrea, made to the entertainer. Her daughter had just told her Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted her after giving her what he’d said was a “herbal medication.” According to Gianna Constand’s testimony on Wednesday, when she asked Cosby what drug he’d given her daughter, Cosby left the line; he returned to say he couldn’t read the prescription bottle label and would mail her the name on a piece of paper, which he didn’t do.

    Cosby probably thought
    this call might have been taped.

    In the deposition, Cosby said he told Mrs. Constand he’d mail her pills from the same pack used in Jan. 2004—he still had it a year later, he said. Ten days after that phone call, on Jan. 25, 2005, Cosby was interviewed by Cheltenham Township police as part of an investigation into Andrea Constand’s charge that Cosby drugged and assaulted her. At that meeting, flanked by his lawyers, Cosby told law enforcement the drug in question was Benadryl. At the end of the interview, Cosby surprised the police officers by handing over a white pill, a green pill and one-and-a-half pink pills to law enforcement. The toxicology report on those pills was read in court on Friday. They found no controlled substances in one and two. The third, the pink pills, was determined to be diphenhydramine, better known as Benadyrl.

    The results raised more questions. Why didn’t Cosby simply tell Gianna Constand he’d given Andrea the popular over-the-counter sleep aid? Pink Benadryl pills also didn’t match the blue pills Constand reported taking; the court had been told blue Benadryl tablets were sold in 2004. It also wasn’t clear why Cosby gave police pink pills when 10 days earlier he’d told Gianna Constand he’d mail her pills from the same pack.

    The blue-pill, pink-pill mystery will likely remain unresolved—only one of the unanswered questions lingering as the prosecution rested its case on Friday…

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  646. It really makes sense to admit possible prior acts for sexual offenses in particular – in fact not being able to find any would be a very good defense for anyone over the age of 20 or so ad should be allowed.

    Of course something should dhow that the prior accusations are independent of each other.

    Sammy Finkelman (8cff4d)

  647. Bedlam,

    I understand that it’s a respectful disagreement, both ways, and I appreciate that.

    I also understand that there are lots of exceptions in the rules of evidence, and most of them have some sort of policy logic behind them. There’s a broad-based exclusion to “prior acts” evidence, and there are delineated exceptions (e.g. 413). There’s a broad-based exclusion to hearsay, and there are a number of delineated exceptions.

    Just as there is policy logic to the delineated exceptions to the hearsay exclusion, so there is policy logic to the delineated exceptions to the prior acts exclusion. You may disagree with the policy logic, but delineated exceptions are a common feature of rules of evidence.

    To answer your question directly: yes, I do think that there should be different rules of evidence in the context of sexual assault victims. The nature of the crime and the injury are unique, in many ways, and the acts almost always occur in private (such that the testimony of other witnesses is not available). If anything, I would be more inclined to allowing “prior acts” evidence in a wider variety of cases – going the opposite direction, as it were, in pursuit of the same goal (consistency).

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

  648. * Beldar. Stupid auto-correct.

    Leviticus (8c06a6)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.3934 secs.